Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T06:45:26.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bats in Belfries (and Naves and Chancels)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2014

Extract

For many years, probably for centuries, bats have hunted and roosted in churches. They have now become less than welcome. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a church in Bedfordshire placed a bounty of 6d per dozen on the heads of the animals, and in the 1930s the organist of Binsey found himself unable to distinguish the black keys from the white because the colours were obscured by bat droppings. The problem, therefore, is not new. More recently, a debate in the House of Lords, initiated by Lord Cormack, a former Second Church Commissioner, produced a short-lived but vigorous spate of articles and letters in the national press. Complaints about the activities of bats came from far and wide, from North Yorkshire to Northampton and Oxford. The problem seems to be especially acute in East Anglia, however. The greatest cause for complaint was the damage caused to woodwork, floor tiles, alabaster memorials and monumental brasses by faeces and urine. As a moment's reflection shows, these are corrosive (the latter more so) and the effects can be disastrous. In any case, where bats are present in any numbers, someone has the distasteful task of trying to remove the droppings and the urine stains on pews, window sills and floors each time the church is used. It is not unknown for bats to defecate on the heads of incumbents at the altar, which raises questions as to the consequences of bat infestation for the health of clergy, congregations and other church users, over and above the damage to buildings and their contents.

Type
Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Times, letter, 23 June 2014.

2 The Times, letter, 20 June 2014.

3 HC Deb 25 June 2013, col 30WH.

4 Natural England Technical Information Note TIN043, p 3, available at <https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/commission-agenda10batsinhistoricbldgsapp1-dec11.pdf>, accessed 10 October 2014.

5 See The Times, 27 June 2014; Daily Mail, 10 July 2014.

6 HC Deb 25 June 2013, col 31WH.

7 HL Deb 12 June 2014, col 575.

8 Letters to the Revd M Shepherdson, Rector of Avebury, 9 May 2013 and 11 October 2013, as communicated to the author.

9 Letter to M Shepherdson, 11 October 2013. The letter quotes a judgment of the European Court in Commission v Finland, Case C 0342/05, and the Conservation of Species and Habitat Regulations, considered below. The attentive reader will recognise the language of the minister's speech in the House of Lords debate.

10 Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), ‘Bats in churches’, available at <http://www.bats.org.uk>, accessed 10 October 2014; letter from the Chief Executive of the BCT, The Times, 20 June 2014.

11 Regulation 53(1), (3).

12 Regulation 53(2)(g).

13 Regulation 53(2)(e).

14 Ibid.

15 The Times, letter, 2 July 2014.

16 Regulation 53(1)(e).

17 Regulation 53(2)(g).

18 Regulation 53(9)(a).

19 Regulation 53(9)(b).