The post you are reporting:
Going back many pages now to post #1089 where it was proposed that a constructive alternative was put together and then to post #1104; the question was posed re - EH and their apparent lack of care for the heritage, no money, little work from them, etc. and I did ask Alex whether he was a member of EH, I seem to remember from another thread that he said he was.
Surely it is vitally important that people opposed to the CGI developments who are members of the EH lobby their own organisation, agitate from within, organise other members of EH to tackle the lack of care shown for the heights by EH and then work in concert with EH and other organisations (such as the IWM, mentioned by Peter, WHPS, WCCP, etc.) to develop a funded and deliverable preservation and restoration programme. Harking back to previous undertakings that have not been honoured will not necessarily get those undertakings honoured today and certainly does not constitute a constructive alternative.
Not having a new funded plan to preserve the heights prepared in conjunction with EH, IWM, WHPS, etc. undermines the credibility of opposition to CGI proposals and makes it look like NIMBYism (please note that I am NOT saying that opposition to CGI is nimbyism) that will condemn the heights to a slow and painful destruction.