The local authority petitioned for a faculty permitting the felling of two apparently healthy beech trees which were the subjects of tree preservation orders. The trees were in the closed churchyard, responsibility for the maintenance of which had passed to the local authority. The Parochial Church Council, the Diocesan Advisory Committee and various local residents objected to the proposal. The trees were a substantial contributory factor in the subsidence of a property on the adjoining high street. The subsidence and damage would continue indefinitely unless the building was underpinned at a cost in excess of £40,000 or the trees were felled. If the trees were not felled the local authority would be liable in an action in nuisance for the cost of underpinning the adjacent premises. The chancellor held that the court was entitled to conclude that the local authority, in bringing the petition, had carried out a proper balancing exercise between the amenity of the trees and the cost of the underpinning. The chancellor referred to the decision of Re White Waltham (No 2) [2010] Fam 146 and held that the situation was akin to the position where a local authority had determined an application for planning permission in relation to works for which a faculty was also sought. The court was entitled to accept the decision of the local authority as a reasoned starting point from which to begin its own deliberations and it was not appropriate for the court to force the local authority to pay for the underpinning when it had concluded that it was unwilling to do so. [RA]