The case has caused a great deal of anger amongst many in the conservation field who believe that it shows EH to be acting outside its statutory duty as the guardian of the nations' historic environment. Its new slogan reads, "nobody does more for England's heritage". Well, in the case of the Baltic an alliance of amenity groups and concerned individuals and institutions had certainly done considerably more for England's heritage than EH. To many, the Baltic is further evidence of an organisation that is losing sight of its raison d'etre - defending historic buildings - in its desire to be seen as a "modern" forward looking organisation that won't stand in the way of good new architecture.

Specifically, on two occasions EH could have been seen to have acted against the interests of the historic environment. First, in 1996, when the organisation decided not to insist on restoration, despite widespread opinion from all sides that it was possible and that the economic case for demolition had not been proven. The whiff of the £10m "donation" is also hard to eradicate, all though in the event no offer was made. And second, in 1999 when officers' firm recommendations, in line with EH policy, to oppose the Gherkin because of its impact on historic buildings, areas and London's skyline was overturned by the LAC.

Transparency

The Baltic case has added further ammunition to the case (pursued in particular recently by the Victorian Society and the Evening Standard) for greater openness at English Heritage. The decisions of the all powerful advisory committees and the commission have far reaching consequences (particularly for reasons described below). Yet, and despite the Select Committee's recommendations, minutes and reports remain secret. Contrast this with local authorities, where officers' reports are made available to the public before meetings and committees sit in public. However, EH appears unwilling to change this, putting it increasingly out of step with the trend towards greater transparency in government. There can be no justification for this position. After all, less than ten years ago the LAC did meet in public.

There is possibly some good news. There are signs that under a new chairman, Sir Neil Cossons, EH is taking a tougher stance on proposed tall buildings in London. Only a week ago it wrote to the Corporation about the 183m "Heron Bishopsgate Tower" objecting to the application because "the height, mass and siting . . would have significant impact on the City skyline and a detrimental impact on important views of St Paul's Cathedral, particularly the panorama of the City of London from Waterloo Bridge, and on other listed buildings and conservation areas in the City of London". Sounds familiar? This could mark a change of direction from the Stevens era, when the then chairman proudly declared in his annual report for 1998/99 that EH had "taken the clamps off". We await EH's comments on the Paddington Basin towers, and the mega tower by Renzo Piano proposed for London Bridge, with considerable interest.

Power

However, the bad news is that EH's present all powerful position is leading to a worrying trend in the Secretary of State's call in practice in conservation cases. We have been scratching our heads and consulting colleagues in an attempt to come up with an example of a public inquiry being called on a conservation issue against the advice of EH. We can't. In other words, even if national amenity societies, local groups and residents are united in opposing a scheme that threatens the historic environment, if EH backs it and does not request a call in, there will be no public inquiry. That is what happened at the Baltic - opposed by the Georgian Group, the City Heritage Society, the Victorian Society, the SPAB, the CBA and, highly unusually, the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies.

This is alarming because these are respected bodies with immense experience and expertise and their opinions should be taken very seriously. EH might have excellent staff and comparatively vast resources, but it does not have a monopoly on the "right" opinion. Just because it is the Secretary of State's statutory advisor does not mean necessarily that its opinion is one that represents the balance of considered professional opinion, nor one that is in the best interest of our buildings and landscapes. However, that appears to be exactly what Ministers are all too willing to take it to be.