Well I think I'm right that both the law and EH are more pro-development these days (they've even changed the definition of conservation to mean managing change). EH is the (unwilling) creature of the Govt. after all, not an independent champion for heritage, and the govt.'s will is to downgrade heritage.

On the other hand, I'm glad they haven't had to become "progressive" over the Avebury issue. They oughta be fuddy duddy and take decades to mull over any changes. And don't forget, unlike the stick 'em all up now party or even "The People" they're tied in to international charters, documents that say things like "A monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness" which can be interpreted several ways with no Case Law to guide them, and "restoration must stop at the point where conjecture begins".