The petitioners wished to carry out an extensive programme of reordering spread over ten years. The proposed works included (inter alia): a new lavatory in the current vestry; a new vestry at the west end of the south aisle; the removal of the pews from the north and south aisles to allow for better circulation; a new kitchenette and hospitality area in the north chapel; the main entrance to the church to be through the north porch as it once was, with work being carried out within the porch to allow for disabled access. The amenity societies consulted had reservations about a number of aspects of the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that there was a clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

Confirmatory Faculty refused for the retention in a Grade I twelfth or thirteenth century church of a modern painting of the Baptism of Christ, which was hung next to the font and which had been commissioned by a previous rector.

The petitioners applied to reintroduce into the churchyard a memorial to their father, which had been placed on the centre of the grave of the petitioners' parents, but had been removed because it had been installed without authority. The grave already had a memorial to the petitioners' mother. The additional memorial to the petitioners' father was in the shape of a small cylinder, with names and dates around the circumference and a Maltese Cross on the top surface. The design was outside the churchyards regulations, though it was noted that most of the memorials nearby breached the regulations in some way. The Chancellor determined that "the memorial proposed is attractive and complements the original memorial in place" and he therefore granted a faculty.

A priest, who (and whose family) had several connections with the church and village, wished to reserve a grave space. The Parochial Church Council ('PCC') objected on the basis that it had made a policy decision in 2012 (reaffirmed in 2020) of not approving any reservations of graves, but to have a 'first-come, first-served' policy, though the present incumbent and self-supporting minister of the parish supported the present application. The Chancellor stated that weight should always be given to such a PCC policy, but such a policy could not override the discretion of the Chancellor, should an exceptional case arise. The Chancellor decided that in this case the petitioner had shown such a degree of exceptionality as to justify the grant of a faculty.

The Parochial Church Council (PCC) wished to amend a faculty granted in 2023, for the installation of electric heating so as to substitute Near Infrared ‘Couronne’ chandeliers for the Far Infrared ‘Halo’ chandeliers which had been approved. The advantage of the Couronne chandeliers was that they would save the PCC £40,000; the disadvantages that they were not as attractive as the Halo chandelier and they would give off a red glow. The Chancellor considered that the proposed variation would be a major departure from what had previously been approved and would affect the character of the church as a Grade I listed building of special architectural or historic interest. He accordingly dismissed the petition.

The PCC had passed a resolution in 2009 that it would not support future applications for the reservation of graves, as it was estimated that the churchyard would be full within ten years. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the reservation of a grave for a parishioner and his wife, who wished to be buried in a grave next to the Pet‭itioner's mother: "I have

The petitioners proposed several items of reordering. One of the items was a proposal to move the font from near the south door to the eastern end of the north aisle. The reason given for moving the font was that its current position was not convenient for social or recreational occasions in church. The Chancellor reminded the petitioners of Canon F1, which requires the font to be sited near the main entrance to the church. As he decided that he could find no exceptional liturgical or other reason for moving the font, he declined to grant a faculty and said that the whole project should be looked at again and a new petition presented so that the proposals could be reconsidered as a whole.

The proposal was to install four 50 inch LCD monitors on pillars in the nave of the church, plus a 24 inch monitor in the choir vestry and a 32 inch monitor on a wheeled trolley, plus associated electronics and wiring. There were several objections from parishioners. Historic England and the Council for the Care of Churches (though it did not formally object) considered that the monitors would be intrusive and harm the character of this historically significant Grade I church, which has associations with St. Cuthbert. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty so far as the four largest screens were concerned.

A number of reordering proposals included replacing 18 oak nave pews with Howe 40/4 chairs and the re-siting of the Victorian font. Neither Historic England nor the Victorian Society objected to the proposals. Two parishioners submitted letters of objection, but did not wish to be parties to the proceedings. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being "satisfied that the benefits which will flow from the removal of these pews are significant in that the removal of the pews will allow the space of the nave to be better appreciated and will allow the use of such space for a variety of activities. Even bearing in mind that this is a listed building, I am satisfied that there is a clear and convincing justification for the removal of the pews which outweighs such small degree of harm."

The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the installation of servery units in an 'L' shape in the south-west corner of the church. Historic England objected to the 'L' shape and felt that the two arms of the 'L' should be separated, leaving space in the corner. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the works as proposed: "I judge that if the units were moved apart leaving a gap in the corner the separation will lead to a spread of ‘kitchen activity’ over a wider area and leave a gap in the corner which will inevitably become filled with unattractive items."