Unlike many of our posts on “bells in churches“, the case headlined as “‘Knights Templar bells’ removed from Scottish church” concerns the reinstatement of bells which have been removed from a church; this Scottish example will be of interest to those concerned with planning control and with ecclesiastical law on bells in particular.
Background
The Religion Law Centre has summarized the background:
“A couple who bought Holywood Church, near Dumfries, in 2019, are resisting attempts to re-instate the medieval church bells which they removed for security reasons. The bells are linked to the Knights Templar and have been described as ‘one of the most significant and valuable medieval discoveries in Scotland’.
The couple removed them and several plaques for safe keeping but have now been issued with a listed building enforcement notice by the Scottish government which is demanding their re-instatement. The Daily Record reports that the couple is looking to sell the building, which they bought with planning permission to convert into a three-building house, and do not plan to remove the bells permanently. But they say that restoring them before the building is secure would be an unacceptable risk”.
The entry on British Listed Buildings for Holywood Parish Church And Churchyard states, inter alia, that in this Category B church:
“Two church bells of medieval date from a former abbey church at this location. One bell has an armorial and initials. The other is inscribed.
“Ecclesiastical building no longer in use as such. Bells noted in RCAHM INVENTORY, 1920, no. 285.
“The church bells, which hung in the former abbey church, are part of the special interest of the building and contribute to an understanding of the earlier ecclesiastical history and development of the site”.
Removal, Appeal and on-going action
Case reference LBA-170-2021 (Listed Building Consent Appeal) provides a summary of the initial appeal in February 2025:
“Medieval bells must be returned to the belfry of a historic Scottish church after it was found that they made an important contribution to the building’s heritage value. The bells were initially temporarily removed from Holywood Church in Dumfries in 2022, to allow for maintenance work.
The appellant…then applied for listed building consent for the bells to be removed. Dumfries and Galloway Council declined to grant this, however. Historic Environment Scotland objected to the proposal.
The church was built in 1779 on the site of the medieval Holywood Abbey and incorporated the abbey’s medieval bells. The church is a category B listed and closed for worship in 2010. There is an extant permission for it to be converted into a home.
The appellant argued that the building has humidity problems which could harm the bells if they were returned. It was also argued that the bells would be at risk of theft if returned. It was also stated that the sale of the bells was essential to enable the renovation of the church.
The DPEA reporter…was not convinced. [They] said:
“the bells are intrinsically linked to the church and form an important part of the fabric of the building and the history of the site.
“The evidence before me demonstrates that the importance of the bells as a significant special historic feature within the church specifically relates to their history as bells that were originally hung in Holywood Abbey and then subsequently rehung in Holywood Church” said the reporter. “The removal of the bells from the church would break this link.
“I do not consider that the appellant’s financial motivations or potential security concerns arising from his interpretation of the history of the bells provide sufficient justification for the removal of the bells,” commented DPEA reporter, who noted that no evidence was provided of the bell’s risk of deterioration if returned. [They] found no justification for the permanent removal of the bells and dismissed the appeal”.
[The inspector’s decision – case reference LBA-170-2021 – can be read here].
Consistory Court judgments
Of the 13 consistory court judgments reviewed since 2012, only 13 are bell-related issues (i.e. about 1% of the total), and of these the most pertinent are: Re A Redundant Church Bell [2021] ECC Oxf 11 and Re Holy Cross Scopwick [2015] Lincoln Const Ct, Mark Bishop Ch. as these concern the display of, and the disposal of unwanted bells in England, respectively.
The possibility of theft is considered in both, and the former anonymised judgment considered whether the court should permit a redundant treble church bell to be displayed at the base of the church tower “notwithstanding the risk that it may be stolen from this village church, which is left open during the day”. Hodge Ch. granted as faculty for the return of the existing treble bell for display in a secure position within the foot of the bell tower (with the method of securing the bell to be agreed between the PCC and the DAC).
In Re Holy Cross Scopwick, Bishop Ch. was quite satisfied that the grounds for disposal are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the strong presumption against not disposing of the bell. A Faculty was therefore granted permitting its removal to the diocesan store, but stressing that this does extend to any other proposal for disposal of the bell.
very interesting case
This is a superficial summary which lacks the clarity of the research and focusses on the misinformation. The crux is not in relation to humidity but rather the fact, ‘you would not hang a Van Gogh in a bus shelter’. The full information for scrutiny can be found at https://www.hiddenheritage.info/
Common sense dictates before making judgment, the full research and correspondence trail should be read in full first.
Thank you
From the L&RUK perspective, the importance of the case is the Decision Notice of 19 February 2025 for which a further appeal is in prospect.
Ailie Callan, the Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers, addressed the issues of humidity and security in her report (at 8 to 12).
However, “the matter for consideration in this appeal is not the provenance of the bells but to consider the effect the removal of the bells would have on the special interest of the listed building” [13], and “Taking all matters into account and for the reasons given, [she found] that the removal of the bells would fail to preserve the listed building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses” [17].
We await details of the further Appeal with interest.
Thank you
This case illustrates the danger of the reliance on building listings created over fifty years ago from historical ‘understanding’ created and influenced by superficial Victorian conjecture, not research or evidence. These ‘errant’ listings have become fossilized by listing agents (in this case Historic Environment Scotland), reluctant to as they say, ‘open the flood gates’ to challenges made to the foundational details of individual property listing. Accessing the web site listed above by R Bonde, graphically illustrates, via correspondence and evidence, why listing and amending listing is extremely important when new improved understanding is made… ie, to ensure appropriate protection and sustainability of former historic ecclesiastical buildings and their fittings is maintained