The petitioner wished to install a kerbed memorial in the churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty (subject to conditions about the height of the kerbs) for the following reasons put forward by the family: the deceased had died young in tragic circumstances and a more substantial memorial was appropriate to mark her grave; the family particularly wished that kerbs would discourage people walking on the grave; there were already 16 kerbed memorials in the churchyard. Also, the parish priest had advised that the family had European heritage where there was a culture for more elaborate memorials and the inclusion of kerbing was part of that cultural heritage.

The cremated remains of a child who died within hours of a premature birth in the 1980s had been interred in the churchyard. The petitioners (the father of the child and his three daughters) wished to have the remains exhumed with a view to them being reinterred in the father's garden. The father's wife had expressed a wish before her death to be buried in the garden with the remains of her deceased child. The Chancellor could find no justification for allowing the exhumation and reinterment of the child's remains as proposed, but he granted a faculty authorising exhumation, provided that permission could be obtained for the remains of the child and both parents to be interred in the churchyard of the church where the mother's funeral had been conducted or in some other consecrated ground.

The petition sought permission for the following works in the Grade I listed church: the installation of toilets and the creation of a sound-proof meeting room with kitchen facilities in the north transept; the removal of the temporary kitchen at the east end of the south aisle; the creation of a reredos; the relocation of an altar in front of the reredos; and the creation of storage space behind the reredos. One matter of concern in this case was the proposal to level the floor of the Cowper Chapel in order to create an even floor for the proposed meeting room. However, the Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items as proposed.

In October 2014 the Chancellor had granted a faculty for certain works, including the replacement of pews with chairs. It was a condition of the faculty that "No order shall be placed for the new nave chairs/pews until their design has been either agreed with the DAC, English Heritage and the Victorian Society or approved by the Chancellor." In September 2016, the PCC, without approval, ordered 50 chairs which had matt gold coloured metal frames, with seats and backs of a rich brown faux leather. Upon hearing of this, Historic England and the Victorian Society objected to the choice of chair. The petitioners applied for a confirmatory faculty limited to ten years. Mindful of the huge cost the PCC had incurred in the reordering, and that the justification outweighed the harm in this case, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for 10 years, requiring the PCC before the end of such period to put forward proposals for some alternative chairs.

The reordering proposals for the Grade I church included: (a) removal and disposal of all pews, except five older 'pauper' pews to the west end of the north aisle; (b) introduction of upholstered chairs; (c) repairs to the nave floor; (d) replacement of existing carpet; (e) installation of an oak storage unit; and (f) replacement of the overhead heaters. The Victorian Society argued that the removal of all the pews would adversely affect the visual impact of the interior, and it had concerns about upholstered chairs. However, the evidence was that the pews were of poor quality wood and were riddled with worm and unrepairable. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the understanding that only the seats of the proposed chairs would be upholstered and in a neutral colour.

The petitioner wished to introduce into the churchyard a memorial to her late husband. The proposed memorial included kerbs laid flush with the ground. The Diocesan Advisory Committee felt unable to recommend the proposal, as the churchyard regulations had for three decades not allowed the introduction of kerbs, and the Church Council did not support the proposal. Although the petitioner argued that kerbs laid flush with the ground would not impede mowing, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Mowing was not his only concern: "I am concerned that kerbs, even flush with the ground, would have the effect of creating a series of individual memorial plots, boundaried and set apart, grave by grave, from the rest of the churchyard. This would conflict with the sense that each grave and its memorial was contributing to the overall peace and tranquillity of the whole churchyard ..."

A faculty was sought for extensive reordering works. Part of the reason for the works was to allow the church to be used by the local Church of England school in particular and the community in general. The Victorian Society objected to the the laying of the proposed wooden floor, which would involve removing some Victorian floor tiles. The Church Buildings Council objected to the proposed new position for the font. Both the Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council objected to the proposed new pew benches being upholstered. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the new pew benches should not be upholstered, but may have separate cushions, subject to the material being approved by the court.

The proposal was to retain permanently a Hauptwerk digital organ (belonging to Wakefield Cathedral), which was introduced into the church under an Archdeacon’s Licence for temporary minor re-ordering. The church already had a faculty in place for the removal and disposal of the pipe organ, with the proviso of having a suitable replacement option. Although the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal, the Chancellor granted a faculty: "I am satisfied that the petitioners have discharged the burden on them of displacing the presumption that the Harrison and Harrison organ should be replaced with a pipe-organ. I am satisfied that they have considered the merits and demerits of alternatives to their preferred Hauptwerk solution, particularly the relative costs, and that their proposal is in all the circumstances a reasonable one in terms of their wishes, needs and resources."

The petitioners wished to increase the number of bells in the tower from 6 to 10, or alternatively to 8. The original 6 are heavy, precluding most women and young people from ringing them. For a number of reasons, the Chancellor had reservations about the proposals and refused to grant a faculty as sought, suggesting that the petitioners should seek a revised scheme and revised quotation from the bell-founders.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the installation of a retractable screen to be placed over the chancel arch of the church, being satisfied that this would be preferable to the current arrangement of standing a portable screen on boxes at the front of the nave, and that the works were likely to bring benefits which outweighed the general presumption that change should not be permitted.