The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to replace the existing gas boiler and radiators in the church with a ChurchEcoMiser system (involving the installation of 23 new electric radiators). The petition was unopposed, though the Diocesan Advisory Committee thought that an air source heat pump would be a preferred option. The Chancellor did not consider it appropriate to require the petitioners to investigate the option of an air source heat pump. He was satisfied that the petitioners had done enough to justify their proposed choice of heating system and he granted a faculty.

Mr. Gordon Mills died in 1983 and was buried in the churchyard at Welcombe. A memorial had been erected over his grave, leaving room for a further inscription. Some years before, his marriage had broken down, and following separation from his wife had lived with Mrs. Margaret Walker. Following Mrs. Walker's death in 2000, one of Mr. Mills's daughters and a granddaughter applied for permission to add the following inscription to the memorial: "Also his beloved Margaret (Walker) much loved Mum and Nan 31-12-1915 - 24-2-2000". Four of Mr. Mills's children objected to the inscription. The Chancellor decided that "Mum and Nan" might be misleading, as Mrs. Walker was not the natural mother and grandmother to all Mr. Mills's children and grandchildren. He also thought "loved" and "beloved" was repetitious. He therefore granted a faculty authorising: "Also his beloved companion Margaret Walker 31st December 1915 - 24th February 2000".

The PCC wished to replace lead stolen from the church porch roof with plain tiles. The DAC objected and felt that terne-coated stainless steel was preferable, as the porch had always had a metal roof. English Heritage were agreeable to either steel or tiles. After consideration of the decision in St Alkmund Duffield, the Chancellor determined that it would not be appropriate to put tiles on a roof which had historically had a metal roof covering, but terne-coated stainless steel would be an acceptable alternative to lead: " ... if the proposal for plain tiles was granted then this would result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.  I am also satisfied that the level of harm done would far outweigh any benefit that could be obtained from the use of tiles over the use of [terne-coated steel]".

Faculty Petition for various works to a redundant chapel vested in the Churches Conservation Trust and the adjoining chapelyard, including improved access within the chapelyard and into the chapel, various rainwater and foul water drainage improvements, the creation of a rubbish and recycling area, and the removal of the modern metal security gates from the entrance to the south porch and their replacement with the Victorian gates which previously hung there. There was one objector, whose objection was in respect of the replacement of the porch gates. Finding by the Chancellor that the gates, being part of the redundant chapel, were not within the Faculty Jurisdiction (though the chapelyard still was). Faculty granted for all the works.

A Faculty had been granted in 2013 for the felling of some trees in the churchyard. On the date when the contractors started work, an objection to the work was made on site, as a result of which the work was suspended. The faculty subsequently lapsed. A new petition was presented and the same objector wished to become a party opponent. The Chancellor issued directions dealing with, inter alia, (a) an allegation by the objector that the Chancellor should recuse himself; (b) an application by one of the petitioner's for an extension of time in order to respond to the objector's particulars of objection; and (c) the need for an arboricultural report. The Chancellor also directed that the Ancient Yew Group should be invited to comment on the proposals.

The petitioner's mother died in a motor accident in 2000. The petitioner's father had been in such a state of shock that he had left it to a family friend to arrange the funeral. Notwithstanding that the father and his three daughters were all atheists, the family friend arranged for burial in the consecrated churchyard at Charlwood. Each member of the family had never been happy with this and had only recently found it possible to discuss the matter together. They now wished the mother's body to be exhumed and cremated, and the ashes scattered elsewhere. The Deputy Chancellor considered the guiding principles laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299 and concluded that this was an exceptional case where exhumation should be allowed: " ... I am persuaded that there was a fundamental mistake of intention in this case ... For a family of conscientious atheists, Christian burial was not the right choice. The daughters have tried very hard to honour and make sense of their mother’s memory through the medium of her grave, but they reached a point whereby the thing which should provide some solace was doing the opposite."

The petitioner (a churchwarden) wished to carry out repairs to three box tombs. There was one objector (who did not become a party opponent), who raised a number of issues, but the Chancellor did not regard the objections as grounds for refusing a faculty. A faculty was granted, subject to Historic England not making any representations within 28 days. If any representation were to be made, the matter was to be referred back to the Chancellor for further directions.

Interments of two family members had taken place in the same grave in 2012 and 2013. After the second interment there had been only a foot of earth over the second coffin, and in the course of time the second coffin had become exposed. An application was made for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of both coffins from the family grave and for re-interment of both coffins in the same grave in another part of the churchyard. The Chancellor determined that there were special circumstances to justify him permitting both coffins to be exhumed (even though the first coffin could have been left in situ with a sufficient covering of earth) and for them both to be re-interred in a new family grave.

The chancel of the church is only used for daily prayer and for fortnightly coffee mornings. The works proposed were the introduction of radiators and additional carpeting, to make the chancel more comfortable on the occasions when it is used. It was also proposed to create a new bell-ringing floor in the tower, in order to create a disabled toilet and kitchen at the base of the tower. There were letters of objection from two bell-ringers in respect of this item. The Chancellor decided that any impact on the bell-ringers should not outweigh the benefits of providing appropriate toilet and refreshment facilities. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner applied on behalf of her mother to have the cremated remains of her father exhumed from his burial plot and reinterred in another plot. Interments of cremated remains in the churchyard normally allowed for 18 inches of spacing between memorial plaques, so that visitors did not tread on memorials. At the time of the interment, the proximity of the petitioner's father's grave plot to neighbouring plots had been obscured by a green carpet laid over the neighbouring plots. It later became apparent that there was insufficient space to tend the plaque laid on the plot without stepping on neighbouring plaques, and there was evidence that the petitioner's father's plaque had been trodden on. This was very distressing for his widow. The Chancellor considered that the problem had arisen because of an unfortunate mistake as to spacing by those responsible for laying out the plots and he considered therefore that the granting of a faculty was justified.