The Parochial Church Council ("PCC") wished to replace the oil-fired boiler with a new oil-fired boiler. The Diocesan Advisory Committee considered that the PCC had not had "due regard" to net zero guidance, as required by the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2022. Before their petition had been considered by the court, the PCC arranged the installation of the replacement boiler. The PCC subsequently provided the Deputy Chancellor with information about alternative heating systems, which included a quotation for converting the oil-fired boiler to run on hydrotreated vegetable oil ("HVO") at some stage in the future. The Deputy Chancellor, in view of the PCC's declared aim to decarbonise its heating with the development of an eco-friendly heating system within the next 5 years, granted a faculty, subject to (a) the PCC undertaking accredited carbon offsetting, and (b) the faculty limiting the use of the oil-fired boiler until 2028, when any request for an extension would have to be supported by evidence as to whether there had been compliance with the offsetting condition and whether the boiler had by then been converted to HVO.

In his judgment in Re St. Mary Stalbridge [2024] ECC Sal 1, the Deputy Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty for the installation of a new oil-fired boiler, subject to conditions, and gave directions as to the provision of further evidence regarding the circumstances in which the boiler was unlawfully installed without the authority of a faculty. After considering further evidence from the petitioners and the heating engineers, the Deputy Chancellor advised the petitioners that in future they must always obtain a faculty (or other authorisation) before they commence any works in the church. He also proposed (after seeking advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee) to make an order under s.78(3) of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018, known as an excluded matters order. This would have the effect, for a specified period of time (which he proposed should be two years), of depriving the parish of the benefit of List B authorisations, so that any works falling within List B, which would ordinarily require only the authorisation of the Archdeacon, would, during the specified period, instead require a faculty.

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to his late wife. The proposed stone was light grey granite, polished on its face. The Parochial Church Council objected to the use of granite. Local churchyard regulations provided for sandstone to be used, to blend in with the sandstone of the Grade I listed church, and in the area used for burials since 1947 the memorials were exclusively of sandstone. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the use of granite. Granite would look out of place amongst the existing sandstone memorials. And to allow granite could upset those already denied the opportunity of having granite, and might generate an expectation that granite could be permitted in future.

The petitioner wished to reserve a singe depth grave space in the churchyard. She was a resident of the parish and on the church electoral roll, and she attended church occasionally. There were an estimated 248 graves available. However, the Parochial Church Council had passed a resolution in 2021 to adopt a policy of not supporting any further grave reservations, except in exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor considered that the reasons given for the policy were reasonable and there were no sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty

The incumbent and Churchwarden sought permission to carry out masonry repairs to the nave south clerestory. The Chancellor said that he would not normally have prepared a judgment for a matter like this, but he had been concerned about comments from the visiting architect. However, he granted a faculty without requiring a consistory court, because there was some urgency, as the Church was on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register.

Petition for the removal of box pews, installation of new flooring and under-floor heating, WCs, a kitchen, and removal of the font. The whole project was dependent on the removal of the box pews. Faculty granted.

The incumbent refused to approve the use of the words "Dad" and "Grandad" in the inscription for a  memorial, the reason given being that the parochial church councils of the benefice had agreed, in a written policy, that (inter alia) only the words "Father" and "Grandfather" should be used on memorials. The Chancellor could find no real justification for this policy and granted a faculty to authorise the use of the words "Dad" and "Grandad", which she did not find objectionable. (Although not a reason for the decision, it is noted in the judgment that 15 inscriptions on memorials in the churchyard used the words “Dad” or “Grandad” and there were 12 examples which showed use of female equivalents, such as “Mum” or “Nan”.)

The petitioner wished to reserve a double grave for herself and her partner. The petitioner had been resident in the parish until 2013, the remains of her father and stillborn child were buried in the churchyard, and all her immediate family still lived in the area. The normal period allowed for reservation of a grave in the diocese was 25 years. Evidence suggested that there was room for further burials only for a further 7 to 10 years. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited it to 10 years, giving permission to the petitioner to apply for an extension within 6 months of the expiry of the 10 years. The judgment contains a review of decisions relating to grave reservations by other Chancellors, including cases where Parochial Church Councils had adopted policies of not supporting grave reservations.

A faculty was granted to permit the replacement of stolen lead roofing with a non-metal roofing material known as Ubiflex. The faculty was limited to a period of five years.

The petitioners wished to place in the churchyard a bench made of steel with slats made from recycled plastic. The Diocesan Advisory Committee ('DAC') did not recommend the proposal. They considered the design not suitable for a historic village churchyard, but more appropriate for a school or city centre, and that a timber bench would be more appropriate. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He did not think it appropriate or necessary to overrule the choice of the Parochial Church Council ('PCC') on grounds of aesthetics. However, he imposed a condition that the PCC should reconsider the design and materials of the bench. If they decided on an alternative, then the alternative would be allowed, subject to prior approval by the DAC. Otherwise, the design accompanying the petition was approved.