St Mary Magdalene, Richmond, currently has a ring of eight bells dating from 1680 to 1740, with a heavy tenor (18½ cwt) by Lester & Pack dated 1760, which are clearly fairly horrible to ring. In Re St Mary Magdalene, Richmond [2025] Ecc Swk 4, the churchwardens and tower captain petitioned for a faculty for the following works:

“The remodelling of the church’s bells by the retention, tuning and re-hanging of the three Bartlett bells, and the introduction of five new bells, to create a ring of eight bells (using the existing bell-frame); melting down the Lester & Pack bell (the metal of which will be used for the casting of the new bells); and the storage and display of the four Catlin bells within the church building (of which one will be in the clock room of the bell-tower, one in the Lady Chapel, and two in the South aisle)” [1].

The church is listed Grade II*, though the listing does not mention the bells [4].

There were no objectors; however, Petchey Ch decided to give a written judgment because the case raised questions about how the guidance in Re St Alkmund Duffield [2012] Court of Arches was appropriately applied to bells and the practical application of the Code of Practice on Conservation and Repair of Bells and Bellframes [3].

The background

The bells had always been “difficult” because, given the size of the tower, the wheels are smaller than would ideally be the case [8], and a rehang in a new metal frame in 1981 had not improved matters [9]; furthermore, “The sound of the bells is also not good” [10]. The original proposal had been for an entirely new ring, but Historic England and others had objected, while the DAC had recommended it only on the basis that the bells were “rehomed” in another tower – which (unsurprisingly, if you’re a ringer) did not prove possible [11].

The ringers, supported by the PCC and in consultation with the relevant stakeholders, proposed an alternative: to retain the Bartlett bells within the new ring, to display the Catlin bells as artefacts within the church, and to melt down the Lester & Pack tenor to provide metal for four new bells. The new ring would be made up as follows [12]:

1 New bell 3-3-14 in G, 2 New bell 4-0-00 in A, 3 New bell 4-1-00 in B, 4 New bell 4-3-00 in C, 5 Existing 4 (Bartlett 1680) 6-1-00, retuned to D, 6 New bell 7-1-00 in E, 7 Existing 6 (Bartlett 1680) 9-2-00, retuned to F#, 8 Existing 7 (Bartlett 1680) 13-1-00, retuned to G.

The result would be much more tuneful bells that would be easy to ring [14].

The Master of the Surrey Association of Church Bellringers wrote that training new ringers at Richmond was both challenging and unsatisfactory for the learners, and that “New ringers are the lifeblood of any tower, and unless action were taken at Richmond, ringing would be likely to die out in the near future” [15] – a judgment that was confirmed by the ringers of St Mary Magdalene themselves [16]. Historic England set out its reasons for not objecting, beginning:

“Although the new scheme will result in change to the ring which has been in place for over 250 years, and the loss of one bell, it appears it would make a real improvement to the playability [sic] of the bells and support continued bell-ringing at Richmond, whilst greatly limiting harm” [17].

The Duffield principles

Petchey Ch summarised the Duffield principles at [21], as follows:

1. Would the proposals, if implemented, result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest?
2. If the answer to question 1 is “no”, the ordinary presumption in faculty proceedings “in favour of things as they stand” is applicable, and can be rebutted more or less readily, depending on the particular nature of the proposals.
3. If the answer to question 1 is “yes”, how serious would the harm be?
4. How clear and convincing is the justification for carrying out the proposals?
5. Bearing in mind that there is a strong presumption against proposals which will adversely affect the special character of a listed building, will any resulting public benefit (including matters such as liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being, opportunities for mission, and putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission) outweigh the harm?

Considerations

Petchey Ch said that “serious harm” in the Duffield guidelines derived from and were essentially synonymous with the words “substantial harm” in the secular guidance [22]. The following considerations were to be taken into account:

• The three Catlin bells were to be preserved within the church [24];
• The present ring of eight included bells from three dates: what was proposed was a continuation of the same process of renewal and improvement [25];
• The significance of the proposed changes would be greater had the wooden frame survived from 1760 – but it had not [26]; and
• All the bells except the tenor were to be preserved, three within the existing ring and four within the church itself, and the Lester & Pack tenor from 1760 was not rare [27].

Conclusion

Overall, the public benefit would outweigh the harm:

“The justification for carrying out the proposals is clear and convincing whereas the harm is limited. In aural terms the loss of an historic ring will be offset by the substitution of a more tuneful one; and in physical terms only a single historic bell is lost and that one not of the greatest significance. I am fortified in my conclusion by the fact that no-one, and more particularly, none of the heritage stakeholders have objected to the proposals. I attach in this context particular significance to the letter of Historic England, commending the compromise that is proposed” [36].

“I should add this. I think that if the tenor had been of, say, the fourteenth century from which only a comparatively few examples survive, it is likely that there would have been considerable objections and it would never have been proposed that it should be melted down. As it is, the Lester and Pack bell is not rare but it is an artefact that is more than 250 years old. I do feel some hesitation in permitting its destruction, albeit it is to be recast. I cannot help thinking that we may be approaching a time when the recasting of eighteenth-century bells will not be permitted simply because of their age. In a similar way to that in which, in terms of the National Planning Guidance, the loss of a fourteenth-century bell would now be regarded as minor work causing substantial damage, so, in the future, loss of an eighteenth-century bell may come to be so regarded. However, evidently this is a question for the future.” [37]

A faculty should issue [38].

Comment

As a ringer myself (on a fairly horrible ring of six of no great antiquity), it’s hardly surprising that I found this judgment interesting. Preserving old bells as historic artefacts is obviously of great cultural importance; equally, however, the average age of the ringing community is rising, new ringers are difficult to recruit, and “difficult” bells are a pain – sometimes literally – both for beginners and for oldies like me.

If it’s a choice between preserving old bells for their own sake and having bells that people can actually ring, I know which side I’m on.