Churches as Sanctuaries for Bats: A Vital Role in British Conservation

Across the patchwork of Britain’s countryside, ancient churches stand as enduring symbols of faith, history, and community. Yet, beyond their spiritual and cultural significance, these venerable structures serve an unexpected but critical ecological purpose: they are sanctuaries for bats, some of Britain’s most vulnerable mammals. With their weathered stonework, cavernous roof voids, and biodiverse surroundings, churches provide ideal roosting and foraging habitats for bats, whose populations have dwindled due to habitat loss and environmental changes. However, the presence of bats in churches often sparks conflict with congregations, who may view them as nuisances due to droppings or misconceptions. This  blog post delves into why churches are indispensable for bat conservation in Britain, exploring their age, structure, and surrounding habitats, addressing negative perceptions, and highlighting their conservation significance. Supported by scientific literature, we’ll also examine practical mitigation strategies and envision a harmonious future where churches remain havens for both worshippers and wildlife.

Why Churches Are Crucial for Bats

Age: Timeless Refuges in a Changing World
Many of Britain’s churches date back to the medieval period, with some, like St. Mary’s in Swaffham Prior, Cambridgeshire, standing for over 900 years. This longevity makes them uniquely suited as bat roosts. Unlike modern buildings, which are often sealed and lack crevices, ancient churches have accumulated structural imperfections, cracks in stonework, gaps behind timber beams, and weathered mortar, that mimic natural roosting sites like tree hollows or caves. These features provide stable microclimates, essential for bats during different life stages: warm roof voids for maternity colonies in summer and cooler crypts or cellars for hibernation in winter. A 2018 survey by the Bat Conservation Trust estimated that over 60% of pre-16th-century churches in England host bat roosts, supporting at least eight of the 17 breeding bat species in the UK, including the soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus, and the rare grey long-eared bat Plecotus austriacus.

The stability of these ancient structures is critical in a landscape where natural roosts have vanished due to deforestation, urban sprawl, conversion of old buildings and intensive agriculture. Research by Marnell and Presetnik (2010) notes that anthropogenic roosts like churches have become “surrogate habitats” for bats, compensating for the loss of ancient woodlands. For species like the barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, which has declined by up to 99% since the 19th century, churches offer a lifeline, providing long-term roosting opportunities across generations.

Structure: Architectural Havens for Bats
The architectural complexity of churches makes them ideal bat habitats. Features such as bell towers, nave roofs, and chancel voids offer diverse roosting options. For instance, maternity colonies of common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus often cluster in warm, insulated roof spaces, where temperatures can reach 30°C, ideal for rearing pups. Meanwhile, species like the Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri prefer cooler, more stable environments found in walls or under lead-lined roofs. The variety of microclimates within a single church can support multiple species, a phenomenon documented in a study by Entwistle et al. (1997), which found that churches often host “multi-species roosts,” enhancing local bat diversity.

Church structures also provide access points, slipped slates, gaps under eaves, or even gaps above doors, like at St Peter’s Church in Winteringham North Yorkshire, that allow bats to enter and exit easily. These entry points are critical, as bats are highly sensitive to changes in roost access. A case study in Norfolk’s All Saints Church revealed a colony of over 300 soprano pipistrelles using a single gap under a roof tile, highlighting how even minor structural features can support significant bat populations. The durability of church materials, such as oak timbers and lead roofing, ensures these roosts remain viable for centuries, unlike modern buildings that may be renovated or demolished.

Surrounding Habitat: A Foraging Paradise
The ecological value of churches extends beyond their walls to the surrounding churchyards and landscapes. Many churches are nestled in rural or semi-rural settings, surrounded by habitats rich in insects, the primary food source for Britain’s bats. Churchyards often feature ancient yew trees, wildflower meadows, and unmown grass, fostering insect populations like midges, moths, and beetles. Hedgerows, streams, and nearby woodlands serve as commuting corridors, guiding bats from roosts to foraging grounds. For example, the brown long-eared bat, with its broad wings suited for gleaning, thrives in churchyards where moths are abundant, while pipistrelles hunt over nearby wetlands.

A study by Walsh and Harris (1996) emphasized the importance of linear landscape features like hedgerows for bat navigation and foraging, noting that they enhance connectivity between roosts and feeding sites. Churchyards themselves can act as mini-nature reserves, with some, like St. Andrew’s in Little Massingham, Norfolk, managed as biodiversity hotspots under schemes like “Caring for God’s Acre.” These habitats are vital, as insect declines due to pesticide use and climate change threaten bat food supplies. By preserving or enhancing churchyard biodiversity, churches bolster the foraging success of resident bat populations.

Bat droppings and urine beneath a Natterer’s bat maternity roost, located in a church near Malton, North Yorkshire.

The Conservation Significance of Churches

A Lifeline for Declining Species
Bats are among Britain’s most threatened mammals, with all 17 breeding species protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Historical declines, driven by habitat loss, agricultural intensification, and light pollution, have left many species, such as the greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, critically endangered. Churches have emerged as critical refuges, providing stable roosts in a landscape where natural habitats are scarce. The Bat Conservation Trust’s National Bat Monitoring Programme, established in 1996, has shown that some species, like the common pipistrelle, are stabilising, partly due to the availability of church roosts.

Churches are particularly important for maternity colonies, where females gather to give birth and raise young. These colonies are vulnerable to disturbance, and the loss of a single roost can devastate local populations. For instance, a 2014 study by Zeale et al. found that soprano pipistrelle colonies in churches were more resilient than those in modern buildings, due to the stable conditions and lack of frequent renovations. Bats also provide ecosystem services, such as pest control, consuming thousands of insects nightly. A 2011 study by Kunz et al. estimated that bats save global agriculture billions annually by reducing crop damage, a benefit that churches indirectly support by hosting bat populations.

Indicator Species and Ecosystem Health
Bats are considered indicator species, sensitive to environmental changes like habitat fragmentation, pesticide use, and climate shifts. Their presence in churches reflects the health of surrounding ecosystems, as bats require both suitable roosts and abundant prey. By protecting church roosts, conservationists safeguard not only bats but also the broader biodiversity they depend on. The Bat Conservation Trust notes that churches are “lasting features in a changing landscape,” offering a rare opportunity to conserve bats in human-dominated environments. In regions like East Anglia, where wetlands support high insect densities, churches are biodiversity hotspots, hosting rare species like the serotine Eptesicus serotinus.

Negative Perceptions Among Church Communities

Despite their ecological value, bats in churches often face hostility from congregations and clergy. The primary concern is bat droppings (guano) and urine, which can accumulate in pews, on altars, or near historic artifacts, causing damage and requiring costly cleaning. For example, a 2019 case study in St. Mary’s Church, Titchmarsh, reported £10,000 in annual cleaning costs due to a large pipistrelle colony. Guano can also stain medieval wall paintings or corrode brass fittings, threatening cultural heritage. While bat guano poses minimal health risks with proper handling, its presence can disrupt religious services or community events, limiting church use.

Cultural misconceptions exacerbate these tensions. Bats are often associated with darkness, disease, or superstition, rooted in historical folklore or media portrayals. A 2020 University of Bristol survey found that some clergy viewed bats as “unclean” or “demonic,” reflecting deep-seated biases. These negative perceptions can lead to calls for bat exclusion, such as sealing roost entrances, which is illegal without a license under UK law. Such actions risk harming bat populations and incurring legal penalties, highlighting the need for education and mitigation to foster coexistence.

Mitigation Strategies: Harmonising Bats and Churches

Resolving conflicts between bats and church communities requires innovative, science-based solutions that respect both ecological and cultural needs. The Bats and Churches Partnership Project (2019–2023), funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, pioneered approaches to support churches hosting bats. Below are expanded mitigation strategies, grounded in research and real-world applications:

1. Alternative Roosts and Modifications
   Creating alternative roosting sites can reduce bat presence in sensitive church areas. Bat boxes, installed in nearby trees or on church exteriors, provide substitute roosts during repairs or to divert bats from high-use areas. A successful example in St. Peter’s Church, Edensor, saw Natterer’s bats relocate to heated bat boxes during roof renovations. Bespoke roosting structures, like bat towers or loft conversions in outbuildings, offer long-term solutions. In some cases, installing “bat-friendly” access points, such as louvred vents, allows bats to roost without entering worship spaces.

2. Timing of Works and Surveys
   Scheduling maintenance outside bat breeding (May–August) or hibernation (November–March) seasons minimises disturbance. Professional ecologists, following the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (4th edition, 2023), conduct surveys using detectors, endoscopes, and DNA analysis to assess bat presence. These surveys inform mitigation plans, ensuring compliance with European Protected Species Mitigation Licences (EPSML) issued by Natural England. A case in All Saints, South Elmham, used thermal imaging to map bat roosts, allowing targeted repairs without harm.

3. Acoustic and Lighting Deterrence
   Research by Stone et al. (2015) demonstrated that low-level ultrasonic deterrents or targeted lighting can guide bats away from sensitive areas, such as altars, without affecting roost viability. For example, St. Hilda’s Church, Ellerburn, used subtle LED lighting to deter bats from a medieval font, reducing guano damage while preserving roost access. These non-invasive methods are cost-effective and reversible, making them ideal for historic buildings, although require permission from Natural England given it is a form of disturbance.

4. Habitat Enhancement
   Enhancing churchyard biodiversity supports bat foraging and reduces reliance on distant habitats. Planting wildflower meadows, creating ponds, or providing log piles boosts insect populations, benefiting species like the Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, which hunts over water. Reducing artificial lighting around churches preserves nocturnal insect activity and bat commuting routes. The “Living Churchyards” initiative encourages parishes to manage grounds for wildlife, as seen in St. James’s, Dursley, where a meadow attracted moths, supporting a brown long-eared bat colony.

5. Guano Management
   Simple measures, like placing washable boards under roosts or using protective covers for artifacts, can mitigate guano damage. Regular cleaning by trained volunteers, as implemented in St. Andrew’s, Wroxeter, reduces costs and health concerns. These practical solutions allow churches to remain functional while hosting bats.

6. Community Engagement and Education
   Education is pivotal to changing perceptions. Bat walks, talks, or interpretive signage can engage congregations, as demonstrated by St. Mary’s, Beverley, where “bat evenings” drew hundreds, fostering appreciation. Resources like the Bat Conservation Trust’s “Bats in Churches: A Guide for Churchwardens” provide practical advice, while the National Bat Helpline offers direct support. Highlighting bats’ pest control benefits—such as consuming wood-boring beetles that damage church timbers—can align conservation with church interests.

A Brighter Future for Bats and Churches

The coexistence of bats and churches hinges on collaboration, innovation, and mutual respect. By embracing their role as biodiversity stewards, churches can transform from conflict zones into models of conservation. Community engagement is key: parishes that host bat events, like St. Lawrence’s in Eyam, report increased support for conservation, turning bats into a source of pride. Educational campaigns, supported by organizations like Historic England, can dispel myths, emphasising bats’ ecological and economic value.

Ongoing research continues to refine mitigation strategies. The Bats and Churches Project’s legacy includes a database of over 10,000 church surveys, informing policies like the National Planning Policy Framework, which mandates biodiversity net gain. Advances in technology, such as eDNA (environmental DNA) sampling, enable non-invasive monitoring of bat species, as trialed in Devon churches in 2024. These tools ensure that conservation remains proactive and adaptive.

Policy support is also critical. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires public bodies, including the Church of England, to conserve biodiversity. Initiatives like Scotland’s NPF4 prioritize habitat enhancement, encouraging churches to integrate bat-friendly practices. Funding from schemes like the Bats in Churches Project or Heritage Lottery grants can offset mitigation costs, ensuring that financial burdens do not deter conservation.

Ultimately, churches can lead by example, demonstrating how human heritage and wildlife can coexist. By preserving roost access, enhancing churchyard habitats, and fostering community goodwill, churches can remain sanctuaries for bats and worshippers alike. As bat populations stabilise, evidenced by the National Bat Monitoring Programme’s 2023 report showing a 34% increase in pipistrelle counts since 1999, churches stand as beacons of hope, proving that conservation and culture need not be at odds.

Conclusion

Britain’s churches are more than architectural relics; they are ecological lifelines for bats, offering ancient roosts and biodiverse foraging grounds in a fragmented landscape. Despite challenges posed by guano, damage, or misconceptions, mitigation strategies, alternative roosts, timed works, habitat enhancements, and education, pave the way for coexistence. Supported by robust legislation, scientific research, and community engagement, churches are central to bat conservation, safeguarding species that underpin ecosystem health and agricultural economies. By embracing their dual role as spiritual and ecological sanctuaries, Britain’s churches can forge a brighter future, where bats thrive alongside human heritage, enriching both nature and culture for generations to come.

References

• Bat Conservation Trust. (2023). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (4th edition).

• Entwistle, A. C., et al. (1997). Habitat management for bats: A guide for land managers. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

• Kunz, T. H., et al. (2011). Ecosystem services provided by bats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223(1), 1–38.

• Marnell, F., & Presetnik, P. (2010). Protection of bat roosts in buildings. EUROBATS Publication Series.

• Stone, E. L., et al. (2015). Managing conflict between bats and humans: The response of bats to artificial light. Mammal Review, 45(2), 71–82.

• Walsh, A. L., & Harris, S. (1996). Foraging habitat preferences of vespertilionid bats in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33(3), 508–518.

• Zeale, M. R., et al. (2014). Improving mitigation success where bats occupy houses and historic buildings, particularly churches. Defra Research Project WM0322, University of Bristol.

• Bats and Churches Partnership Project. (2023). Final Report. Bat Conservation Trust.

Additional Resources

• Bats in Churches Project: www.batsandchurches.org.uk

• National Bat Helpline: 0345 1300 228

• Caring for God’s Acre: www.caringforgodsacre.org.uk