The four petitioners (one of whom wished to be cremated) petitioned to reserve exclusive rights of burial for 30 years in a triple-depth grave next to their parents' grave. The churchyard only had space for burials for 20 years. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited the reservation to 20 years.

The petitioners wished to reserve a double-depth grave in the churchyard. In 2016 the Parochial Church Council had decided on a policy of not supporting further reservations of grave spaces, owing to the relatively small number of available spaces left. Though granting a faculty on the particular facts of the present case, the Chancellor took the view that the period of a reservation should not  extend beyond the time when there would be about five years' worth of space left available. In the present case the Deputy Chancellor decided that the appropriate time limit to be placed on the reservation should be six years. The Deputy Chancellor commented that there had been a number of informal reservations allowed by a previous incumbent and that these informal reservations had no legal effect, so that the graves informally reserved were available for burials of anyone having a right of burial.

A faculty had been granted for some reordering work at the church. Subsequently, the team vicar had received a letter of objection within the period for objections, but it was not sent to the registry before the expiry of time for objections and issue of the faculty. To ensure justice to all concerned, the Chancellor therefore set aside his decision pending consideration of the objection. Having considered the letter of objection, the Chancellor determined that the likely harm to the church was minimal and that any such harm would be outweighed by the benefit to the community. He therefore directed the issue of a faculty.

Faculty granted for the construction of an extension to the north side of the church. This judgment follows on from the judgment in Re St. Mary Kenardington [2013] Morag Ellis Comm. Gen. (Canterbury).

The Faculty Petition sought authority to construct a toilet block in the churchyard and an extension to the north side of the church. When the Commissary General visited the site, building work had already begun without Faculty. Faculty granted for the construction of the toilet block. Work on the extension to be stopped until further order. An archaeological report to be filed.

The Chancellor considered three petitions relating to memorials. The first petition sought retrospective approval of a memorial (already erected) in the shape of an open book. The second petition, by the Archdeacon, sought the removal of the memorial. The third petition was for a further memorial in the shape of an open book. The Chancellor decided to authorise the first memorial and the erection of the second and to refuse the Archdeacon's petition.

Several items of repair and reordering were proposed. Letters were received from two people objecting to: replacement of the chancel pews with chairs; removal of two pews from each side of the west end of the church, in order to provide more circulation space; and the introduction of notice boards and leaflet stands at the west end of the church. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought to remove the font from the west end of the church to the chancel and to remove one pew from the west end of the church. The judgment contains a discussion of liturgical tradition and the provisions of Canon Law regarding the siting of a font. Faculty granted.

The petition proposed a reordering of the chancel, to include extending the chancel floor level a short distance into the nave and to provide new altar rails. The Victorian Society objected to the proposed removal of the pulpit and the removal of the iron railings and alabaster-faced walls which separated the chancel from the nave. The Chancellor concluded that the removal of the features concerned would cause moderate harm to the significance of the building as a place of historical interest, but that the harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of providing a more open, unimpeded and flexible space to meet the worship, mission and community needs of the parish.

The vicar and churchwardens of a Grade I listed church sought a faculty for the installation of a stained glass window in memory of the wife of a canon who had served in the parish in his retirement. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He held that, as a stained glass window adorned or beautified a church, and comprised part of its fabric, it was not a memorial in the normal sense of the word, and that the test of exceptionality relating to the character or service of the person to be commemorated (which would apply in connection with the introduction of a memorial) was not appropriate.