TESSA JOWELL, the culture secretary, is threatening to dismantle English Heritage, the government quango which runs 400 of the country’s greatest historic sites, ranging from Stonehenge to Dover Castle.

The suggestion follows a series of bitter rows between the government and English Heritage, including one over its attempt to derail plans by John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, to demolish thousands of Victorian homes in northern England.

The main winner to emerge from the wreckage may turn out to be the National Trust, the privately run charity which could be handed control of English Heritage’s 400 sites to add to its own 900-property portfolio.

English Heritage would be left with little except its role of running the listings system for preserving old buildings and advising the government on the historic environment.

Under Jowell’s suggestions, to be outlined in a pamphlet to be published by her department just before Easter, the National Trust could become by far the country’s most important custodian of historic buildings.

The trust’s existing sites largely consist of stately homes and historic landscapes. They include Chartwell, formerly Sir Winston Churchill’s house in Kent, and Tyntesfield, a gothic mansion near Bristol, which it acquired with more than £30m of public money in 2002.

Although the trust is sympathetic to gaining some of England’s most famous locations, it will be alarmed by criticism in Jowell’s essay that the heritage world is “too middle-class” and puts too much emphasis on grand houses.

English Heritage is opposed to any move to divest it of historic sites, pointing out that the National Trust would need massive public funds to take on the extra work.

However, Sir Jocelyn Stevens, the quango’s former chairman, said he saw some merit in the idea. He agreed with Jowell that the heritage world lacked a strong unified voice.

A spokeswoman for English Heritage said that the proposal would cost taxpayers “billions” as the National Trust would require government endowments to pay for the future upkeep of buildings and sites.

She claimed that the current arrangement worked well: “A measure of competition is a good thing. So is diversity of ownership.”

English Heritage was set up in 1984 and receives £122m a year from the government, although for two years from 2006 its grant is not being increased. This means a cut in real terms.

The National Trust has an annual income of £300m which comes mainly from membership subscriptions of £38 a year (just £4 more than English Heritage) and entrance fees at its properties, along with commercial activities. It gets no money from the government. The trust has 3.4m members against English Heritage’s 500,000.

In addition to stately and historic houses and gardens, the trust looks after 700 miles of coastland and is thought to be Britain’s biggest landowner with 612,000 acres.

This weekend the trust cautiously welcomed the idea of change at its rival. “There is some conflict of interest in it managing properties, having a regulatory function over listings and advising government on the historic environment,” said Tony Burton, the trust’s director of policy.

He is cautious, however, about the trust taking on new properties, mainly because of the problem with funding.

Although the trust has increased membership in recent years, its financial situation is not strong. It has reserves of £3.5m, well short of its target of £25m. It is also shedding some of its 4,900 employees and moving its headquarters from London to Swindon.

Jowell believes that the heritage world has too many overlapping organisations competing for grants. She thinks there needs to be more centralisation and focus.

Among other options for the break-up of English Heritage to be floated by Jowell will be the creation of a quango to combine its sites with those run by state-owned organisations such as the Historic Royal Palaces agency, which runs Hampton Court and Kensington Palace. The new organisation could also include the Royal Parks Agency, covering London’s St James’s Park, Regent’s Park and Hyde Park.

Critics of Jowell may suggest that she is seeking to demolish English Heritage because it has repeatedly stood in the way of what the government claims are necessary building schemes. These include plans by Prescott to “regenerate” northern cities by replacing old houses with new ones.

It also opposed the government over a planned 1,000ft tower block, nicknamed the “shard of glass”, to be built near London Bridge, although its objections were overruled.

Many in the heritage world believe it is not they who lack focus but the government. “Jowell seems far more interested in the media, arts and sport side of her portfolio,” said Richard Wilkin, director-general of the Historic Houses Association. “Yet the heritage side is always shown in surveys to be hugely appreciated by the public.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads