The priest in charge and churchwardens sought a faculty to lease to a neighbouring landowner, family A, a 58-square-metre area of non-consecrated curtilage at the edge of the churchyard. Family A owned land to the rear of the church which was undeveloped and which would be made more accessible by the lease of the strip of church land by widening the access lane. The petition was opposed by family B, who were also neighbours of the church. Family A had obtained a certificate of lawful use or development from the local authority, which family B had also opposed. When family A cleared the entrance to the lane, family B had dug a ditch and erected a fence on their land which reduced the effective width of the track for access. The lease of the church land would effectively correct the narrowing of the track on the other side.

As it was non-consecrated curtilage, the land did not fall within section 68 of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 but rather came under the residuary common law jurisdiction of the consistory court. There was more latitude in dealing with unconsecrated land than with consecrated land and more scope to consider secular uses (St Peter's Bushey Heath [1971] 1 WLR 357). However, the power to deal with such land should still be granted sparingly, and any transfer should be subject to appropriate safeguards (re Christ Church, Chislehurst [1973] 1 WLR 1317).

Although the petitioners had expressed their case by reference to the Duffield principles, the chancellor noted that they apply only to buildings and their setting, not to the whole of the faculty jurisdiction. However, the integrity of the church, churchyard and retained land should be safeguarded, and any estate created or transferred be limited to what was necessary to achieve the object envisaged (which was confined to the benefit to family A and the balance of detriment or advantage to the church). The chancellor found that the application was justified: the track needed to be widened to enable safe access for family A's land, which would be necessary for any planning application. The detriment to the church was the long-term loss of a strip of land which would be unavailable for future burials. However, there was other land for burials and the loss would not harm the churchyard or church. The covenants in the proposed lease also protected the church's interests, retaining rights for church parking and limits on the types of traffic that could use the track, and limiting any development to two dwellings. In addition the church would receive payment for the land and a percentage payment for any uplift in land value as a result of development.

The faculty was granted for a lease of 999 years. Costs were divided between the parties on the understanding that the parish would be indemnified by family A as it should not have to bear the costs arising from a private dispute. [Catherine Shelley]