The Grade I church stands close to the University of East Anglia. It has what the Chancellor described as a "depressing" interior and a "a tiny congregation that is unlikely to grow". The proposal was for a major reordering with a view to attracting usage of the church by University students. A large donation was available to meet the cost of the proposed works. Historic England had concerns about (inter alia) the proposals for the flooring and the pews. The Victorian Society objected, principally, to the levelling of the floors and the replacement of the pews with chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty.

In 1980, the petitioner's late father's ashes were interred in a cemetery in Loughborough. In 1985, the ashes were exhumed and reinterred in the churchyard at East Leake. The petitioner now wished to have his father's ashes re-exhumed and reinterred in another part of the churchyard, with the ashes of the petitioner's mother, who had recently died. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional factors to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation. The canopy of a cypress tree had grown over the grave, leaving only one metre clearance above the grave; the area around the grave was overgrown; and the grave was likely to be affected by the tree's roots.

The petitioners wished to relocate 64 headstones from the centre of the churchyard to it s perimeter, in order to create “a safe and welcoming outdoor space for events, activities and quiet reflection”. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposal was to create a prayer chapel in the north transept of the church by moving to the centre a stored medieval stone mensa resting on a stone base. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works did not affect the church as a building of special historical or architectural significance. 

The Petitioner wished to install a memorial in the churchyard in memory of his late wife. The proposed memorial was a headstone and kerbs, the proposed stone being polished paradiso granite, described as “a swirling mixture of pink, grey, red and black colours in a strongly-defined tortoiseshell-type pattern.” The Parochial Church Council objected to the proposed type of memorial and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the grant of a faculty. The concerns were as to the colour, the polished finish and the inclusion of kerbstones. The petitioner produced a “petition” signed by several people purporting to support the application for a faculty. The Chancellor determined that such petition was inadmissible. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow a headstone of paradiso granite, provided that the stone had a matt finish, but he refused to permit the installation of kerbs.

The Rector and Churchwardens sought a faculty for the sale of a fifteenth century religious painting portraying the betrayal of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. The painting was so valuable that the Parochial Church Council was unable to afford to insure the painting or provide an adequate security system. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Council for the Care of Churches objected to the disposal of the painting by sale. The Chancellor was satisfied that the valuable painting could not be kept safe in the small rural church and granted a faculty allowng the painting to be sold to an art gallery or museum.

The petitioner wished to install a replacement memorial on his parents' grave. The design included images of a dove, a stairway to heaven and two swans. The inscription included a verse of poetry written by the petitioner's daughter and it ended with an x, the symbol of a kiss. There was an objection that the design would not be in keeping with the part of the churchyard where the memorial would be located. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the x should be omitted from the inscription.

The petitioners wished to replace 75 wooden upholstered chairs with 75 lightweight metal and upholstered Alpha SB2M chairs, which are more easily moveable and stackable. The Church Buildings Council objected to upholstered chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He took the view that, as upholstered chairs had been used in the church for upwards of 12 years, their replacement with the proposed new upholstered chairs would meet a need and result in minimal change in the overall appearance of the church.

The petitioners wished to fell a holly tree in the churchyard, because the roots were damaging a table-top tomb dated 1791. They also wished to fell a failing ash tree and to reduce the crowns of two further holly trees encroaching on graves. A report by experts said that either the tomb or the holly tree next to it should be removed. There were living descendants of those commemorated by the tomb who did not want the tomb disturbed. The Chancellor decided that the preservation of the tomb in situ was more important than the preservation of the holly tree. He also agreed to the removal of the ash tree. As regards the remaining two holly trees, the Chancellor required to petitioners to take expert advice about more modest proposals for pruning the two trees.

The proposals were for a major reordering of the Grade II* church, in order to promote community development and flexibility of worship. The Victorian Society was concerned about the replacement of all the nave pews with new moveable pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items in the petition, apart from the total replacement of all the nave pews. He was content (as was the Victorian Society) for replacement of pews at the front of the nave near the new proposed altar platform, but he invited the parish to consider whether some of the Victorian pews, particularly those with umbrella stands, could be retained towards the back of the nave, so that visitors to the church could be aware of what was in place before the re-ordering.