Five yew trees, a conifer and a holly had been felled without the authority of a faculty. There had been an application for a faculty using the Online Faculty System. The petitioner (a churchwarden) had taken the approval of the Diocesan Advisory Committee to mean that a faculty would be granted. By the time the Chancellor visited the churchyard to inspect the trees, the trees had been removed. The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty, subject to a condition that
new native trees should be planted in the churchyard.

The Parochial Church Council wished to replace the stolen lead flashings from the church roof with Ubiflex, a material made up of reinforced aluminium mesh and a mixture of non-metallic materials. The church had a history of four lead thefts, and in 2011 the local authority had given planning permission to allow the roof to be recovered with stainless steel, though the lead flashings had been left. The PCC was financially unable to afford to replace the lead flashings with lead or steel. As a temporary expedient to preserve the fabric of the church, the Chancellor agreed to the use of Ubiflex, but required the PCC within 4 years to submit to the Registry a report on fund-raising to provide for a much longer lasting solution.

The Parochial Church Council had engaged a “decorative stone & plaster conservator” to carry out restoration work to the painting of the Royal Coat of Arms over the chancel arch of the church, without consulting the Diocesan Advisory Committee or obtaining a faculty. They subsequently realised that they should have obtained a faculty and made an application. The Chancellor, "with some hesitation", granted a confirmatory faculty. 

A baby had died two days old in 2014, and a memorial with kerbs and chippings had been erected on his grave without the authority of a faculty or even the approval of a priest. The memorial was of black polished stone and kerbs, and the inscription on the stone included the words 'OUR LITTLE PRINCE' and 'MUMMY AND DADDY LOVE YOU XXX', whilst the words ''FLY HIGH OUR BABY JJ' were inscribed on the kerb at the foot of the grave.  The proposed inscription in respect of the petitioner's father included 'OUR KING' and 'DAD AND GRANDAD/ALL THE WORLD FOR EVER AND A DAY/XXX'. Prior to installation of the memorial, the petitioner had been told by a churchwarden (during an interregnum) that there were no restrictions on the type of memorial she could have. In 2022 the child's mother petitioned for retrospective permission for the memorial and for a further inscription to be added in respect of her father. The Deputy Chancellor was unhappy about many of the features of the memorial, which were outside the churchyards regulations, but in the exceptional circumstances of the family having been badly misled so many years ago, he granted a faculty.

Two matters were before the Chancellor: (1) an application for a confirmatory faculty in respect of a sound system installed without faculty in 1997; (2) an application by the Archdeacon for a restoration order in respect of lighting installed in the west porch in 2015 without faculty. The Chancellor's decisions were as follows: (1) faculty to be granted for the sound system, subject to conditions, including the replacement of the old sound speakers with new speakers in different locations; (2) a decision on the application for a restoration order in respect of the lighting to be deferred for 36 days, to allow time for a faculty petition to be presented.

The petitioners wished to install 48 solar panels on the south-facing nave roof of the church, to help to reduce heating costs and also reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Diocesan Advisory Committee decided not to recommend the proposals. English Heritage and the Victorian Society objected, but were not parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had proved a necessity and accordingly he granted a faculty.

Several items of reordering were proposed, including new toilet and kitchen facilities, removal of some pews, relocation of the font, construction of a narthex screen, a glazed internal entrance with a pair of frameless glass doors and refurbishment of the porch entrance. Notwithstanding concerns raised by the Georgian Society regarding some of the pews to be removed and the proposed relocation of the font, the Chancellor granted a faculty for all the works, being satisfied that the petitioners had demonstrated a clear justification for the proposed works in terms of the church’s worship, mission, and community outreach.

The petitioner wished to reserve a cremation plot next to the plot where the ashes of her son, who had died in a tragic accident, were interred in 2019. The Chancellor granted a faculty. However, the Chancellor took into account that there were only nine plots left for the burial of ashes; the annual rate of ashes interments was one per year; and the petitioner was only 46 years of age. He therefore limited the grant to a period of 10 years, with leave for the petitioner to apply for an extension within the last of the ten years, when the Chancellor's successor could decide whether to allow an extension, depending on the circumstances at that time.

The Vicar and Churchwardens petitioned to authorise the installation of telecommunications equipment in the spire of the Victorian Grade II* church. Three people objected to the proposals and two of them became parties to the proceedings. The objectors expressed grave concern that the health of families living within 250m of the church tower and the children attending the nursery school and the two schools not far from the church could be affected by the radio waves emitted from the mast. The Chancellor was satisfied from doucmentary evidence that the proposed system fell within internationally accepted safety guidelines and therefore he granted a faculty.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation. The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of his daughter (who had died in 2007 aged 45) from Northolt churchyard and have the ashes scattered at Breakspear Crematorium. Applying the guidance given in the 2001 decision of the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery, the Chancellor did not consider that the reasons given by the petitioner for exhumation - that the petitioner's daughter's grave was neglected, and that the family had moved to near the Breakspear Crematorium, where the petitioner and his wife intended to have their own ashes scattered in due course - were not sufficiently exceptional as to justify a departure from the general rule that permanence of burial in consecrated ground should be regarded as the norm. Also, if exhumation were allowed, the ashes would not be reinterred in consecrated ground.