The petitioners sought a faculty for the repair of a boundary wall between the churchyard and two neighbouring residential properties, which had collapsed in 2014. Despite being one of the principal beneficiaries of the repairs, one of the neighbours objected to the petition. Although the neighbour asserted that the fallen wall was a health and safety risk, she objected on the basis that the cause of the collapse, which was the roots of a tree subject to a tree protection order (TPO), was not addressed in the petition.

In granting the faculty the court emphasised that its function was modest, namely to determine whether or not to grant a faculty permitting the work specified in the petition (the faculty being permissive, allowing but not compelling the work to be undertaken). It was not its role to enter into neighbour or other disputes that were the preserve of the civil courts. It was acknowledged that further permissions would be required, including to enter onto the neighbour's land and, possibly, from the local authority with regard to the TPO and a further faculty. However, that did not prevent the issuing of the faculty currently sought, as one of the permissions required. [Catherine Shelley]