DPEA - Adding Misplay not Merit
- Mark Huitson
- May 17
- 17 min read
Updated: Jul 30
In February 2025, The Scottish Sunday Times featured a news story, centered on a planning decision. It was the Scottish government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division’s (DPEA) verdict that the owners’ bells, should be returned to Holywood Church belfry, regardless of the fact the bells were evidenced to be the only significant provenanced Knights Templar artefacts in the world, worth millions of pounds:
Marc Horne, Senior news reporter for The Times, writing the original article, claimed his editor believed the owners of Holywood Church ‘were hard done by, with regard to the bells’, and so he followed up the initial story with an interview with one of the owners, and another article:
Was The Sunday Times Newspaper, along with the owners’ planning advisors, legal advocacy and agents wrong to criticise the DEPA’s reporter’s decision? Were the owners wrong to remove the bells from the dilapidated church, to keep them safe? Was the DPEA’s reporter’s judgement sound? Professional? Objective? Did the reporter test the owners’ claims the bells were the only significant Knights Templar artefacts in the world, regarded as unique, before they disregarded the attribution as irrelevant? Did the reporter challenge the origins of the property listing to make sure it was sound? A category B property listing that had originally incorrectly cited these unique religious antiquities as sixteenth century architectural fittings, then as simply, ‘medieval’, in ignorance of the irrefutable evidence provided of their extraordinary Knights Templar provenance. A misleading listing created by the Scottish government’s heritage agent, Historic Environment Scotland (HES). Should these unique bells be regarded as architectural fittings, or unique religious artefacts and treated as such? In fact, did the reporter’s observation and judgment reflect the owners’ appeal at all?
The owners’ conflict with the Scottish Government continues... Two people attempting to save Scottish heritage from the malevolent behaviours of academia and governmental institution. The owners have sacrificed over five years of their time together to understand their mis-sold church and its attending archaeology, and then to save it, rather than building themselves the home together they intended. All they found is a catalogue of indifference and incompetence. Has the DPEA added another entry in the catalogue or are they the first government agency to add merit in what should have been a good news story for Scottish history but has turned into a woeful indictment of Scottish heritage management?
Context
It is important to consider the context of the owners’ appeal against the council’s decision that the bells should be returned to the church—why it was so important to have the bells removed from the former church building in the first place, and why the Scottish government, through its agencies, should acknowledge and support the reason for the bells’ removal.
There are over sixty-five thousand bells in the UK—most of them hanging in church belfries. Amongst them is a considerable number of undated medieval bells. Medieval bells are not rare, however dateable medieval bells are. Bells, regardless of age, invariably form part of the property heritage listing of churches, and as such are regarded as integral architectural fittings. There is a spiritual argument they should not be regarded as such, but in context of Holywood Church, the owners took on the bells’ care as an integral part of the property, within its category B listing. They bought the dilapidated church on the understanding the bells were recorded on the building record as sixteenth century, held in a deconsecrated church disposed of by the Church of Scotland, abandoned by the local parish in its de-Christianisation. The owners’ sole aim for the church was to build their home, within the constraints of the planning permission to create a three-bedroom dwelling for their family.
The bells, despite their notable ‘sixteenth century’ dating, were left in the church by the Church of Scotland because removing and storing them would be far more expensive than their monetary and spiritual value. A substantial number of churches were closing and there is already a surfeit of bells without a home—thus church bells, even unattributable medieval bells, have little market worth outside scrap metal value.
The owners’ examination of the Holywood bells was the first time the bells had been comprehensively studied. The research contributed significantly to the understanding of the bells, their affiliation to the site, and the foundation of Holywood Abbey as a Templar preceptory. The three-year investigation exposed the overt delinquency of an 1898 inspection that had errantly dated the bells as sixteenth century. Worse still, a 1920 government audit supported this contrivance, through weak and errant observation and exposition. In correction, the owners confirmed what the 1898 report had discarded, ie., the reports made in the First and Second Statistical Accounts of Scotland, that one of the bells had a mid-twelfth century date attribution, with the other bell certainly a pre-thirteenth century design.
Following extensive research, absent in prior examinations, it was found the bells were cast and hung over the convent of Holy Wood in the mid part of the twelfth century. They were later removed and installed into a new church on the same site in 1779 and were the oldest confirmed bells in the UK. However, age was no reason to remove the Holywood bells, because even with their great antiquity, they were initially judged by the owners as neither remarkable nor particularly historically valuable outside their intrinsic connection to the site.
However, researching the bells’ sponsor led to an inescapable conclusion. W. leRich, appearing on both bells, could only be a master within a Christian religious military order. It was the sponsor’s father’s legacy that led to the compelling conclusion, out of the two military orders that existed in Scotland at that time, W. leRich was a Knights Templar master. His bells were donated to hang over the Templar preceptory, Sacro Nemore or Holy Wood, as such they were unique amongst bells across the world. They were amongst some of the most valuable bells and mediaeval artefacts existing outside a museum. And with that, the bells became more than bells, more than architectural fittings, but precious artefacts deserved of public recognition—not locked away in a private church tower, not to be seen nor heard.
Thus, keeping the bells within the church, with a competent understanding of their extraordinary history, meant it was no longer a case of developing Holywood Church as a dwelling but the church becoming a purposed vessel to display the bells or their facsimiles for the public’s interest, and historical understanding.
The significance of the Knights Templar attribution challenged the existing historical building record and increased the valuation and interest of the church substantially, which was incredibly fortuitous, because in the course of research, the estimated rehabilitation costs for the building hit seven figures, ten times the original estimate. Any plans for a house conversion were abandoned by the owners, and with no plans to develop the church as a signpost to the bells, the archaeology and the site’s re-discovered history, a new appropriate developer had to be found, otherwise the church would remain in a state of dilapidation.
Thus, it was incredibly important the discovery received authoritative authentication, and this included HES amending the property listing, to reflect a relevant understanding of the bells’ special interest and their Templar affiliation. It was only this Templar association that would attract a new developer to the church. A new appropriate keeper who would see merit in developing the building, with necessary and costly archaeological investigation and subterranean engineering. Without authoritative acceptance of the bells’ provenance, it would be impossible to market or attract suitable interest in the church, leaving the church, potentially undeveloped, to become another ‘at risk’ heritage property in Scotland.
Prejudiced, Evasive and Obdurate Behaviour
Despite the presentation of the owners’ comprehensive study and irrefutable evidence, HES, National Museums Scotland (NMS), medieval history academics, and subsequently the planning authority—Dumfries and Galloway Council, doubled down on the weaknesses and the incompetencies of the existing historical record of Holywood. All had reviewed the evidence but refused to consider the owners' detailed and comprehensive archaeological report. All wilfully obstructed the discovery, knowing its veracity. All avoided authentication. Internationally referred academics, identified by academic and heritage leads, disavowed the owners’ discovery with blatantly unsupportable opinion and falsity; so deviant it had no peer support. No counterevidence was presented to dismantle the owners’ reveal, and while history academics and professionals eschewed the merit and inescapable conclusion of the owners’ investigation—beta readers—professionals, senior civil servants, and academics outside the history academic-led sector, objectively praised the owners’ investigation and discovery.
HES, in an attempt to readdress the error of its predecessor’s incompetent 1920 audit of the bells, arbitrarily changed the original sixteenth century attribution assigned to the bells within the property listing to read ‘medieval’ (1098-1601), despite it agreeing the ‘accepted view’ was problematic, and even though this flocculent dating paradigm did not exist in any historical narrative concerning the Holywood bells. It was the opinion of the owners and their legal advocacy that this was HES’s deceitful solution not to conflict with the evidence provided by the owners, but to deny it, keeping the property listing from being ‘factually inaccurate’, even though it grossly and intentionally diluted the bells’ ‘special interest’ on the listing.
HES’s solution to the discovery was to suggest the owners submit their report to be archived in Canmore, where it would not define the official narrative on the bells within the property listing, but simply allow ‘future debate’. HES were challenged by the owners, asking how their denial and lack of support for the discovery satisfied the Scottish government’s heritage policy—seeking a comprehensive understanding of the history of the built-heritage environment. HES, in reply, ignored the issue and stated their ‘medieval period’ redesignation did not conflict with, or overrule, legislative policy.
This evasive and discriminatory behaviour, directed against the architects of the discovery was carried through the planning authority’s decision to ignore the owners’ archaeological report without any objective appraisal. The council offered no authoritative disavowal of the Templar designation and so ordered the owners to return the bells to the church belfry under the ‘medieval period’ classification—thus recklessly endangering some of the most significant medieval finds ever made in Scotland.
Without any authoritative disavowal of the owners’ Templar discovery, the owners could only act according to the evidence in their possession—in contempt of the transparent prejudice being applied against them, their discovery, and the challenge it presented to the administrators of Scottish heritage attempting to play down the significant shortcomings of an outdated, conjectured historical record and its malformed influence on heritage property listing.
The bells were irrefutably, unique and significant Knights Templar antiquities unable to be contained securely in Holywood Church, without significant investment and an appropriate conservation and security plan. Returning the bells before the church presented a safe, publicly accessible environment, and while the owners promoted the evidence of discovery to circumvent the obvious prejudice of the establishment, would present irresponsible endangerment to the bells and the church—and to the owners if they chose to remain on site.
And so, the owners presented their case to DPEA, in appeal against the council’s decision not to recognise the unique provenance of the bells and allow the bells to pragmatically remain off site.
The Appeal
The council, in response to the owners’ appeal, reiterated their refusal to grant permission to remove the bells. The thrust of its argument was that the particular history of the bells did not contribute to the site’s ‘special interest’. The council asserted, regardless of the bells’ provenance, as they formed part of the category B listing, their removal would diminish the understanding of the site.
The council defended its judgement that it ‘had undertaken an assessment of the significance of the assets recorded in the Historic Environment Record. This assessment [being] material to the council’s consideration of development proposals.’ This meant the council had ignored the owners’ archaeological report and made its decision purely on the information presented in the property listing, created in 1971 and amended by HES in 2022, removing the sixteenth century date attribution of the bells, replacing it with their own designation; ‘medieval’, that was not supported by any transparent historical narrative or specialist assessment .
The council’s stance, however, flouted the pre-amble within the council’s Local Development Plan, stating the historic environment could accommodate change, providing it can be carefully and sensitively managed. The degree of permissible change being judged ‘on a sound understanding of the historic asset in question and its setting’. Considering the historic environment record was proven to be unsound, and did not provide a comprehensive understanding of the bells, nor the site, the owners’ counter to the council’s defence was unequivocal.
Any reasonable person would see the fundamental flaw in the council’s argument. Any property heritage listing is formed by a sound understanding of the property, its connection to a site, and its history. It is the bells’ history that dictates and conditions both the nature of their special interest, the site, and their connection to that site. As such their particularly extraordinary Templar history is highly relevant to the bells’ inclusion onto the listing in the first instance, so long as it is accompanied by an evidenced, comprehensive understanding of their connection to the site, and to the building in which they hang.
Thus, if the original listing is significantly flawed or errant through misunderstanding or ignorance, then it is incumbent upon the listing agent, ie., HES, to evaluate new evidence and amend that listing to reflect the understanding of the property, and the special interest it contains, conditioning the understanding of the site, influencing any conservation proposal, protection and subsequently the valuation of the property.
In the case of Holywood Church, the council was fully aware HES did not amend the property B listing to reflect an objective evaluation of that misunderstanding. The council had no authoritative disavowal of the owners’ discovery. They had no verification to allow them to discount the bells’ extraordinary and unique Templar provenance, yet they negligently ignored the merit of the owners’ investigation and evidenced understanding as if it would not have any significant impact on the listed property. Just as HES offered a totally subjective and unqualified opinion to discount the owners’ understanding of the bells, informing their special interest, the council, instead of challenging the property listing—the foundation of their involvement, chose to be complicit in deceit.
Considering the significance of the find, not only in terms of Scottish history but world interest, this failure to disavow the owners’ archaeological evidence and guide the discovery into the historic narrative and understanding of the property record, so recognising the bells’ extraordinary special interest, appeared to be a huge oversight, confirmed by the owners’ legal advocacy and planning advisors:
‘There’s no escaping the point that you [the owners] dispute the historical record. It is noted HES failed to engage with you [the owners] on the artefacts or archaeological report as if there were no legal ground so to do. I do not understand why, but it is nevertheless on record. That should be highlighted in any appeal.’ (Planning Advice Scotland)
Expectation
The owners had a reasonable expectation DPEA’s reporter, Ailie Callan, representing Scottish ministers, would carry out a professional, objective appraisal of the owners’ planning appeal. As a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), it was expected the reporter would adhere to the principles of their professional code of conduct. Thus, the reporter’s professional opinion would be made on relevant, reliable and supportable evidence, and they would only comment on only that they were qualified by education, training or experience. (RTPI Code of Professional Conduct, February 2023)
There was no doubt the owners’ appeal presented the reporter with a challenging case, with an appreciable amount of information submitted, reflecting both the owners’ comprehensive understanding of the bells and the barriers they had been presented to either academic or institutional acceptance. However, the owners had confidence the officer would approach it professionally, as in any judicial review, without bias, in consideration of the significant issues the owners had presented, not only in terms of planning and heritage policy and law, but in context of the planners’ main aim as published by the RTPI; ‘To deliver outstanding placemaking that creates inclusive, healthy, prosperous, sustainable and happy communities.’ (RTPI Website 2025)
[* Placemaking is the process of designing and managing public spaces to enhance their value and create places that people want to be in, focusing on community needs and aspirations. It's about transforming spaces into places that foster social interaction, economic vitality, and a sense of belonging.]
The DPEA’s reporter was made aware, regardless of the outcome of any decision, the owners expected it to be made on an inclusive understanding of the nature of the bells and site, appraised without partiality, governed by the entirety of evidence and facts presented. That the security of the bells, because of their extraordinary provenance, was the only defining factor for the bells’ removal—not the condition of the property itself.
It was expected the reporter would need to seek clarification of the bells’ provenance, in order to assess if the original listing, the foundation of planning’s involvement, truly reflected the special interest stated within the property’s category B listing. This meant, the reporter would need to consider if HES amended the listing in 2023, to reflect the evidence presented by the owners, evaluated and qualified by specialists sponsored by HES as required under section 1.3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
The DPEA—Continuing the Misplay
The owners’ reasonable expectation the reporter’s professional opinion would be made on relevant, reliable and supportable evidence was not met. The reporter’s bias decision bore little relation to the owners’ appeal, ignoring much of the extraordinary circumstance—subjectively cherry picking only that information to support their decision, reinforcing it with misleading observation, irrelevant statements and falsity.
It was clear to the owners, even before the reporter conducted their investigation, the reporter’s decision had already been predetermined, as they refused to acknowledge or meet the owners’ security protocols regarding viewing the bells, implying they refused to recognise the bells' priceless and unique nature.
The reporter also requested an inspection of the interior of the church, but with the presence of unseen archaeology constraining development and causing significant health and safety issues, with high spore readings, internal inspection was denied. Again, it was unclear what the reporter hoped to achieve from inspecting the property when its condition had nothing to do with the bells’ removal.
The reporter subjectively dismissed the owners’ Knights Templar testimony, without any test of that evidence (as had HES and the council), in favour of HES and the council’s unevidenced assertion the bells were unattributable ‘medieval’ bells. With this biased rejection, the reporter conducted their assessment as if the bells had no special interest, no unique Templar attribution, no potential benefit to either a comprehensive dynamic understanding of the site, nor how that understanding would ensure the sustainability and appropriate conservation of the church, nor any consideration of the potential commercial wellbeing of the community. Instead, the reporter adhered to the ambiguous narrative created by HES and the council that the bells were of no extraordinary interest other than they were previously hung in a former medieval abbey that once occupied the same site.
It was expected, considering the huge significance of the discovery which would completely change the public’s historical perspective on the Holywood site and its listing, the reporter would seek clarification of the understanding of the bells, before their decision was made. This was not only reasonable, but entirely prudent considering the huge significance and impact the discovery would have (in a subject with world interest) on the tenor of the property listing, within the context of the government’s Historic Environment Policy, advocating the goal of a comprehensive understanding, and delivered by RTPI's promises ‘to deliver outstanding placemaking that creates inclusive, healthy, prosperous, sustainable and happy communities.’
The reporter:
misrepresented the owners’ testimony, by incorrectly stating the bells were removed from the church in 2022 because of the building’s humidity problem, archaeological constraints and tower’s condition;
failed to acknowledge the bells were removed for security reasons only;
failed to recognise why the bells’ extraordinary attribution dictated they should be removed while new appropriate owners were procured and appropriate conservation plans formed for the church;
misled by stating there were differences in opinion regarding the earlier history of the bells. The only evidenced understanding is presented by the owners, which has only been countered by deliberate ignorance of that understanding and not any supportable alternate histories;
claimed there is a disputed history. There is only one supportable, evidenced history (the one the owners present). HES and the council are not disagreeing with that history, just prejudicially refusing to consider it;
offered facile reasoning, that an extraordinary and unique Templar provenance has no bearing on the bells ‘special interest’.
deceived by stating that all agree the bells are medieval. The owners and all historical narrative prescribe dates, with only a twelfth century attribution being valid. Only HES subjectively state the bells are from an undefined medieval period.
*made uneducated and ill-informed archaeological observations, without evidence to substantiate those observations;
**displayed ignorance regarding humidity and its effects on the bells.
[*The reporter stated, ‘I note from submissions that historical references to under crofts and deeper works have been attributed to Holywood Abbey which previously occupied the land within the church yard rather than the site of the church building.’ The reporter’s observations are both unqualified and misleading, as there is no archaeological survey, nor historical record that has determined the exact location and the extent of the abbey complex and its basements, both within the boundaries of the church yard and beyond. Basements have been opened up in the adjoining graveyard, but this in no way informs the extent or location of all the basement complex.]
[**Regardless of the humidity problems throughout the church, it would not affect bells, hanging fifty feet from the ground in an open belfry. The reporter demonstrates ignorance of that fact and misleads, implying this is the reason the bells were removed. The humidity problem, caused by the subterranean voids under the church prevents cost-effective refurbishment of the building to a safe standard of habitation—it has nothing to do with the bells’ removal.]
What the reporter did not consider
Was the property listing, in terms of understanding, correct and as accurate as it could be with regards to its special interest, thus influencing relevant conservation and protection proposals?
Would the owners unique and priceless Templar attribution, if it were true, have any significant impact on the property listing, in terms of understanding the property’s special interest?
That HES did not amend the listing in 2022, as per the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, Section 1.3.
That there was no objective third-party evidence to disavow the owners’ conclusion of a ‘unique and priceless’ Templar discovery.
Why HES did not engage with the owners’ archaeological report, as it is was clearly within their remit. A point raised by the owners’ planning and legal advocates.
In clarifying the comprehensive nature of the bells’ special interest, how that understanding would best serve the sustainability of the property.
Planning advisors had already prepared the owners for what they predicted be the likely illogicality of the planner’s decision, and confirmed it in review:
‘They [the council and the reporter] applied a narrow, uninformed subjective view, reaching an illogical conclusion... their decision, they thought in-line with planning policy, was in fact contrary to the intent of that policy. Their decision, not informed by a comprehensive understanding of the archaeology, or the error of the existing listing, condemned the site and bells, not their preservation or sustainability. Policies and laws to protect heritage only benefit if those enforcing them understand the prime intent of those policies. However, it is apparent there was little acumen or empathy behind the planning bureaucracy in this instance... We suspect your accusations of prejudice and evasion to deal with the uncomfortable facts of truancy in merit within the historical record and its management are well founded.’ (KSL, Planning Advocacy, March 2025)
Illogicality, Prejudice and Negligence
The reporter’s decision was circulated around the owners’ advocacy. There was not a single argument in support of the DPEA’s decision making process; only condemnation. There was agreement the bells’ unique Templar provenance was no reason to exclude the bells from the listing, so long as the listing reflected that unique provenance—conditioning the site’s special interest. This fundamental knowledge was essential, so any conservation and protection proposals would be appropriate to the property's development.
If the listing was correct in the first instance, including such valuable and historic bells, the church would never have been disposed of by the Church of Scotland for thirty-five-thousand pounds, determining a house conversion was the only option for the unwanted building and its bells. This is a fundamental argument supporting the importance of the listing being correct, informed by competent understanding and not reliance on out-dated ill-formed supposition. HES, the council and the DPEA were not at liberty to ignore the owners’ evidence, unless it had been properly and objectively evaluated and discounted as irrelevant to the 'special' understanding of the bells and the property. This transparent evaluation had not occurred, so the government and local government’s agents had acted both prejudicially and negligently.
The owners’ advocacy agreed the former church building, from this point forward would exist purely to serve the bells, rather than the bells serving the building as an ‘architectural feature’. That the DPEA added another layer of prejudiced bureaucracy, doubling down on a recognised flawed historical record and the consequently outdated property listing ‘maintained’ by HES.
The owners had the right to appeal to the Court of Session, within six weeks of the date of the appeal decision. The owners did not have the resources to appeal, and as any appeal could only be made on a point of law, there was no guarantee it would result in reaching the owners’ goal—not necessarily to remove the bells from the property listing, but to obtain authoritative authentication, and so find new keepers for the church and its bells, so the bells and property could be treated appropriately. Or, conversely, authoritative and evidenced disavowal, so the owners could secure the church, together with its ‘medieval’ bells and move on, leaving it to an uncertain fate in the owners’ reluctant unused ownership.
