Ringing Forums

I completely agree that training and not bells is the biggest need, but as most BRFs are charities with a specific purpose of funding bell repairs, wouldn't reallocating funds to training require a change to a BRF's governance?

As for the cash mountain, I get the impression that some BRFs have fairly low limits on what proportion of a project they'll fund, perhaps they could be encouraged to be more generous?

Some Associations are actively raising money / requesting donations for training as a separate thing to BRF fundraising and I think this makes good sense.

Changing BRF use of existing money would not be easy but starting to collect money for different purposes can be done alongside and gradually transition the habit of donations to the BRF into donations towards recruitment or training.

However, I think people find it harder to pin point what the donation is for or what the charity aspect is when it’s about publicity, recruitment and training.
Some people have tested charging for handling lessons but most people are still giving their time for free as part of recruitment, teaching and training so the parts which are paid for (some of the admin organisation, perhaps the lead organisers time, advertising in local media, tower donations) are varied from place to place and tend to be ongoing costs. I think this makes it harder for people to see it as a charity donation and it is more seen as part of running costs for the organisation.

BRF’s can sit on a fair amount of money as each tower only needs work every 50 - 100 years but then needs a lot of money so it is long term planning but it is likely there could be fewer projects as some churches close or towers fall silent.

I don’t think the challenge is about re-allocating existing funds but more about starting to raise money for other purposes, which requires some thought and definition around what those purposes are. How do we want to recruit and teach bellringing in order to reach more people more quickly?
This is part of the Ringing 2030 challenge and has a variety of possible solutions which people are trying in different places to see what works.
They don’t necessarily need more money although funding for centralised admin support has proved useful in ART and funding to manage an active teaching tower has proved useful in some teaching hubs.

The duties of a charity trustee include keeping the objects of the charity under review, so changing them should be something that is considered from time to time. In addition the proportion of subs transferred into the BRF can be changed very easily. Also there is case for considering registering the whole society as a charity, where there is then more flexibility.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66290919b0ace32985a7e6c3/CC3_feb24.pdf

each tower only needs work every 50 - 100 years but then needs a lot of money so it is long term planning — Lucy Chandhial

When I learnt to ring xx years ago, a lot of towers had timber bellframes, with bells hung on timber headstocks and plain bearings. Over the last 50 years, thanks to societies setting up BRF's, a substantial proportion of these have been replaced. Modern engineering is such that in 50 - 100 years only a minor overhaul will be needed, which will be far less expensive. Long term planning needs to focus on the needs of the future, not what we have been used to doing for the last five decades.

The duties of a charity trustee include keeping the objects of the charity under review, so changing them should be something that is considered from time to time. — Roger Booth

That would require the agreement of both the association membership and The Charity Commission:

You must ask for Commission authority if your amendment will:
* change your charity’s purposes

That it will likely be difficult and time consuming. I think @Lucy Chandhial's suggestion of diverting funding from the BRF into a training fund would be easier.

Modern engineering is such that in 50 - 100 years only a minor overhaul will be needed, which will be far less expensive. — Roger Booth

Our installation is 100 years old and it cost ~£60K for the rehang - the wheels needed rebuilding, the steel and wooden frames need strengthening, a new ceiling/floor etc etc etc - refurbishment is always going to be an expensive business.

How do we want to recruit and teach bellringing in order to reach more people more quickly? — Lucy Chandhial

Recruitment gets most of the attention but it's pretty pointless without a solid, countrywide pipeline for people to progress along, and that's sorely lacking in many areas. That training needs to go well beyond PH/PB, which is about the outer limits of most people who start via ART. Relatively speaking, "fixing" recruitment is easy - indeed my tower has stopped at the moment because we don't have sufficient capacity to deliver decent training to new starters. Adequate training at the Surprise / 8 bell level is rare at best - once-a-year courses don't cut the mustard and I'm just about to stop going to the nearest fortnightly (!) Surprise Major practices which are almost entirely focused on extending the repertoire of long-term already-advanced-level ringers, I can't justify 90 mins of travelling for two half courses of Cambridge, which is all I'm "allowed" to ring by the person running the practice. Fair enough if he wants to ring Spliced DooDah with his friends, but it isn't an adequate learning environment for anyone trying to get to that level.

the proportion of subs transferred into the BRF can be changed very easily. Also there is case for considering registering the whole society as a charity, where there is then — Roger Booth

The ODG AGM normally votes to make a substantial grant to thee bell fund but this year the trustees said it didn't need any more money,over and aabove its other sources of income, so no donation was made.

That would require the agreement of both the association membership and The Charity Commission ... That it will likely be difficult and time consuming. — John de Overa

That doesn't follow. The Charity Comission is primarily concerned with whether a charity spends it's money to achieve charitable purposes. If a charity is not spending its money effectively, and modifying its objects would enable it to do so more effectively (on charitable purposes) then the Commission would be likely to support the change of objects.

That doesn't follow. — John Harrison

You'd first have to persuade the majority of the members of the association that it was a good idea, get them to formally approve it, deal with the thorny issues of donations and bequests that were given specifically for bell restoration, rewrite the governing document of the BRF, get that approved by the membership, then after that you'd have to approach the Charity Commission to ask them to approve the change.

As I said, "That it will likely be difficult and time consuming".

I admit I was replying to the point about the Charity Commission, which is a legal point, and I didn't spot the reference to persuading members. Yes, members would need to agree to changes, but in the current climate that is something to work through rather than a reason not to try. The CC has modernised itself. Several societies have also done so, and my own Guild has just embarked on the process. If those changes are possible, so are changes to how we prioritise the use of money.

in the current climate that is something to work through rather than a reason not to try. — John Harrison

Absolutely so. But I think it needs to be supported by a fully thought-out plan for how the reallocated money is going to be put to best use. @Roger Booth pointed on FB to what The Essex Association are doing in this area, it's an interesting read.

Charity Commission approval shouldn't be a problem. Their guidance is that Charity Trustees have a duty to keep the objects of the charity under review and to spend resources on charitable purposes, and not to accumulate large reserves. Charity Trustees should also seek professional advice where appropriate as the ODG does (and not let reserves lose value in real terms by being kept in short term deposit accounts).

Possible actions could also include giving larger grants, or widening the scope of work that the BRF will fund, such as refurbishing all those dingy ringing chambers or paying for professional bell hangers to visit and train local steeple-keepers. The Trustees could also consider the merits of registering the whole Guild/Association as a Charity.

Members shouldn't be a problem either. When consulted, rank and file members of the Essex Association came up with some excellent ideas of how their large bequest could be used. However, perhaps someone from Essex could comment on what has happened since. My understanding is that the status quo has prevailed.

Possible actions could also include giving larger grants, or widening the scope of work that the BRF will fund — Roger Booth

Yes to everything on your list. Sound Control funding seems to be uncontentious, but I don't know how simulators and CCTV for the bells are viewed by BRFs. We have both (installed during the rehang) and they are used regularly. We also have three roller displays about the church, the bells and ringing in general. We also hired a mobile belfry for the local carnival during the rehang. The funding for all those "add ons" came from the HLF rather than the Association, it seems ironic that it's easier to get funding for that sort of thing from external funding bodies than it is from our own sources.

came from the HLF rather than the Association, it seems ironic that it's easier to get funding for that sort of thing from external funding bodies than it is from our own sources. — John de Overa

Indeed. But it merely reflects that the HLF was set up for broad support of cultural activities whereas BRFs were set up with a narrow focus on hardware. Why they were so set up, and the culture behind it is another matter.

Many of these BRF's were set up in the 1960's and 1970's. In 1972 the Central Council conducted a survey of ringing and there were 4,962 towers with five or more bells in the British Isles. Of those that completed the survey, over 8% were classed as unringable or unsafe. Today, according to Dove only 4.4% of towers with 5 or more bells are classed as unringable and the number of towers with five or more bells in the British Isles has increased from 4,962 to 5,738. All thanks to the work of BRF's and projects such as Ring in the Millennium.

Over the next few decades many of these churches with bells are likely to have a handful of services each year, or even close for worship. The challenge is going to be to retain access so that future generations of ringers can ring them, and even to have a future generation of ringers. The challenge is also going to be to change the deeply embedded culture and move away from narrowly focussed BRF's to one where Guilds and Associations are charities with a much wider remit to safeguard ringing.

wrote "where Guilds and Associations are charities with a much wider remit to safeguard ringing".
This is relevant to our band at All Saints' Landbeach, Cambridgeshire, because that is the direction I am trying to steer us in, unilaterally. So any advice would be welcome.
I feel that our church is headed for being a Festival Church and so I am trying to set up our band such that it is secure and can continue to, as Roger says, "safeguard ringing", even if we lose the support of an active church.
Any suggestions as to the best way to go about this would be welcome.

It really depends on local circumstances. At Northington, the ring of six near here augmented from three in 2018, the population of the village was 221 in 2011. According to the Diocesan Website the average Sunday before Covid was 10 and they are in a benefice with eight other churches and have one Sunday service each month. The parish asks each visiting band of ringers for a minimum donation of £30. I suspect that would not be sustainable each week if your band were to ring in a festival or redundant church, but this is something that the exercise may have to grapple with more often in the future.

In 2011 New Alresford had a population of 5,431 and Old Alresford on the opposite bank of the river Arle had a population of 571. Following Ring for the King, we have used Old Alresford as our main teaching tower, first with a simulator, and since May 2024 we have been ringing the bells ‘open’ for practices and regular training sessions, with ringing often twice or even three times a week. As there is no sound control, Old Alresford bells are clearly audible in much of New Alresford on the opposite side of the river. We post regularly in the local Facebook group and many residents have commented that they like hearing the Alresford bells ringing out. We even received a thank you card and box of chocolates last week!

There is development of 300 new houses going up in New Alresford and the church is very focussed on attracting young families. Evensong is now just once a month, with family orientated teatime services taking place instead. Also, the 9.30am Communion is now only twice a month, with breakfast church and other forms of service more attractive to families replacing it on the other weeks. The ringing of bells is less relevant to these non-traditional forms of worship, although the suggestion that we form a handbell-tune ringing group aimed at young families, and also set up an after-school tune ringing group was warmly welcomed by the Clergy.

I don’t know much about Landbeach, apart from a quick Google search. I see that you are about 5 miles North of Cambridge, and had a population of about 825. The other parish in the benefice is Waterbeach on the other side of the A10. This had a population of 5,500 in 2019. According to Dove, St John’s Waterbeach has a unringable five dating back to 1791, hung in an even older frame. I understand that since 2022 a major development of 6,500 new homes is taking place in Waterbeach, including three new primary schools and a new secondary school.

With limited financial resources, and ageing congregations, the Church of England needs to focus it’s resources not on ancient buildings, but on the worshippers of the future. If we are to safeguard the future of ringing, we need to focus our resources too on the ringers of the future. Whilst it is important to maintain access to ring the bells at Landbeach and many other rings of bells in a similar situation, we also need to be looking at opportunities for the future. I don’t know anything about Waterbeach, but opening up a dialogue with St John’s would seem a very useful step to take. It seems from what I have read that there will be a critical mass of population there to maintain a very active church, and to grow a local band, and you may then have sufficient ringers to ring both sets of bells, as we have done in our benefice at Alresford.

Taking on something like this may seem daunting, but rather than a traditional bell restoration project, developing a bellringing project focussed on engaging with the wider local community, particularly young families, may be both attractive to the church, and also help unlock access to substantial external funding.