Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6230390.stm
The SAVE legal challenge:
http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/baltic.htm
http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/baltic/eh-conclusion.htm
Quote:
English Heritage: Conclusion
Purpose
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, although 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.
The SAVE legal challenge:
http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/baltic.htm
http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/baltic/eh-conclusion.htm
Quote:
English Heritage: Conclusion
Purpose
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, although 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.