Thursday, June 25
If a tree falls in the (New) Forest, does anyone care?
Farewell then Lindsay Cornish, soon to be ex-Chief Executive of the New Forest National Park Authority, who resigned at today's annual meeting of the park authority.
"I also believe that the recent perception of me and my role by some sections of the public, ill informed and libellous as some of it is maybe damaging the reputation of the entire authority. For these and other personal reasons I will therefore be leaving the authority at the end of the month" (snippet courtesy of the Bournemouth Daily Echo)
Speaking as a mere wage slave, leaving a job with barely six days notice comes as a bit of a sudden surprise. If not to say extremely convenient.
One suspects a damage limitation exercise by the National Parks Authority, possibly involving DEFRA, and decided on some time long before this juncture.
I guess that means the potential libel cases can be ignored now?; And the real issues concerning the NFNPA policies can start to be positively addressed?Labels: Forest Uprising Group, New Forest, One Voice
Comments:
I just caught this on our local BBC news last night, after the ten pm news.
What exactly does it all mean? Will it impact the performance of the organisation, or is it some form of bureaucratic post. I confess I don't really understand *really* how National Parks work in their daily impact on their full time residents.
Any CEO will directly influence the culture and aims of their company. Despite the involvement of central government in policy setting, this role still remains pivotal in bedding down this new NP venture.
To date the NFNPA has been seen to be autocratic, inept with their consultative process, and almost ditatorial at times, leading directly to the formation of a number of local pressure groups. Not to work with, but to fight against some of the proposals.
On that basis a change of CEO could be seen as a good move - a chance to start afresh
The biggest complaint against most NPs seems to me to involve planning and land rights/use (check out planning permission fights in the Lake District for example)
Can't see that being any different in the Forest really, but the way these sort of things are handled makes all the difference;
In this instance the NFNPA is quite highly populated by countryside users (walkers/horseriders etc), rather than countryside dwellers (farmers etc)
And as a group their income & political nounce is probably far more daunting than the other NPs have had to cope with in the past
Al lof which leads to an interesting situation where the NPA trundles onwards, but is meeting a somewhat more aware "general public" who are see worrying implications in ploicy and are able (and funded / politically connected) as to not just roll over and accept the NFNPA plans quite so easily.
Post a Comment
<< Home
"I also believe that the recent perception of me and my role by some sections of the public, ill informed and libellous as some of it is maybe damaging the reputation of the entire authority. For these and other personal reasons I will therefore be leaving the authority at the end of the month" (snippet courtesy of the Bournemouth Daily Echo)
Speaking as a mere wage slave, leaving a job with barely six days notice comes as a bit of a sudden surprise. If not to say extremely convenient.
One suspects a damage limitation exercise by the National Parks Authority, possibly involving DEFRA, and decided on some time long before this juncture.
I guess that means the potential libel cases can be ignored now?; And the real issues concerning the NFNPA policies can start to be positively addressed?
Labels: Forest Uprising Group, New Forest, One Voice
I just caught this on our local BBC news last night, after the ten pm news.
What exactly does it all mean? Will it impact the performance of the organisation, or is it some form of bureaucratic post. I confess I don't really understand *really* how National Parks work in their daily impact on their full time residents.
What exactly does it all mean? Will it impact the performance of the organisation, or is it some form of bureaucratic post. I confess I don't really understand *really* how National Parks work in their daily impact on their full time residents.
Any CEO will directly influence the culture and aims of their company. Despite the involvement of central government in policy setting, this role still remains pivotal in bedding down this new NP venture.
To date the NFNPA has been seen to be autocratic, inept with their consultative process, and almost ditatorial at times, leading directly to the formation of a number of local pressure groups. Not to work with, but to fight against some of the proposals.
On that basis a change of CEO could be seen as a good move - a chance to start afresh
The biggest complaint against most NPs seems to me to involve planning and land rights/use (check out planning permission fights in the Lake District for example)
Can't see that being any different in the Forest really, but the way these sort of things are handled makes all the difference;
In this instance the NFNPA is quite highly populated by countryside users (walkers/horseriders etc), rather than countryside dwellers (farmers etc)
And as a group their income & political nounce is probably far more daunting than the other NPs have had to cope with in the past
Al lof which leads to an interesting situation where the NPA trundles onwards, but is meeting a somewhat more aware "general public" who are see worrying implications in ploicy and are able (and funded / politically connected) as to not just roll over and accept the NFNPA plans quite so easily.
Post a Comment
To date the NFNPA has been seen to be autocratic, inept with their consultative process, and almost ditatorial at times, leading directly to the formation of a number of local pressure groups. Not to work with, but to fight against some of the proposals.
On that basis a change of CEO could be seen as a good move - a chance to start afresh
The biggest complaint against most NPs seems to me to involve planning and land rights/use (check out planning permission fights in the Lake District for example)
Can't see that being any different in the Forest really, but the way these sort of things are handled makes all the difference;
In this instance the NFNPA is quite highly populated by countryside users (walkers/horseriders etc), rather than countryside dwellers (farmers etc)
And as a group their income & political nounce is probably far more daunting than the other NPs have had to cope with in the past
Al lof which leads to an interesting situation where the NPA trundles onwards, but is meeting a somewhat more aware "general public" who are see worrying implications in ploicy and are able (and funded / politically connected) as to not just roll over and accept the NFNPA plans quite so easily.
<< Home
All site material © John Hee - ask before you snatch
