Lindsay Cornish quits as New Forest NPA's chief executive (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Lindsay Cornish quits as New Forest NPA's chief executive
9:50am Thursday 25th June 2009 in
THE controversial head of the New Forest National Park Authority quit this morning.
Under fire chief executive Lindsay Cornish resigned at the annual meeting of the organisation.
It comes after a letter criticising her management style and role at the authority hit the headlines earlier this month.
The anonymous 2,000-word document, which accused her of being blinkered and autocratic, had been sent to one of Britain's top civil servants.
It was purported to have been written by some members of staff at the authority.
Opponents had vowed to quiz her over the hard-hitting letter at the meeting in the Forest Lodge Hotel in Lyndhurst today.
But addressing the meeting Ms Cornish said: "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."
She added: "It had always been my intention to pass the baton over on to a fresh pair of hands one the authority if fully established."
Authority Chairman Clive Chatters praised the work of Ms Cornish over the last four years, added: "It saddens me that some parties have more recently chosen to make personal offensive comments about her. Such nasty behaviour falls outside what I regard as common decency."
During the meeting representatives from New Forest pressure groups, Forest Uprising, the New Forest Dog Owners' Group and One Voice planned to raise the issue of the letter.
The three groups have also spent almost a year fighting the organisation's controversial blueprint for the Forest, which includes dog-free car parks, curbs on horse keeping and the possibility of road tolls.
Today's meeting was the objectors' first opportunity to quiz members about the latest version of the plan and the letter concerning Ms Cornish.
Last night an authority spokesman said Ms Cornish and Mr Chatters, had been in contact with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to which the letter was sent earlier this month.
She said: "They have assured them that the issues raised in the letter are being looked into and addressed as appropriate."
Mr Chatters has described the allegations against Ms Cornish as defamatory and demanded proof that the letter was written by employees of the authority.
However, the organisation has done a U-turn over the document. Having originally described it as genuine they now say its origins are unknown.
Comments(23)
Frank28
says...
11:02am Thu 25 Jun 09
Nearly an OAP
says...
11:29am Thu 25 Jun 09
Stephen J
says...
11:32am Thu 25 Jun 09
Quite so.
jammyswine
says...
11:58am Thu 25 Jun 09
--------
I hope this is not a quote from her letter. Whoever wrote this needs to get some training, methinks.
Locksheathen
says...
12:24pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Tony S
says...
12:51pm Thu 25 Jun 09
gareth.pn
says...
12:53pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Locksheathen wrote:No, she's upped sticks
Has she moved branches?
Shoong
says...
1:28pm Thu 25 Jun 09
goard
says...
1:59pm Thu 25 Jun 09
goard
Jesus_02
says...
2:01pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Nearly an OAP wrote:Local.
She has found it's hard at the top. Let's hope her successor is a bit more streetwise with the locals wishes.
Local.
Local.
If things where left to the "Locals" we would have a Republic of the New Forest or more likely still a Kingdom of the new Forest with Lord Montegue as head og state.
The backward nature of the vergers et al who never accepted NP status is only reflected in the opinions of those that can now afford to be "local"
Vonnie
says...
2:22pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Jesus_02
says...
2:41pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Vonnie wrote:Well done Vonnie. You should run for council. You have completely exposed my over use of spell check and therefore undermined any opinion that I may have.
Vergers?? Who are they? I thought that once upon a time the New Forest was run perfectly adequately by the Verderers. ie local people. National Park status was thought by some to be of benefit. Those who argued against it could see issues of control and lack of local input like those recently publicised, which would cancel out and negate any benefits. And who were right? Too late, now.
Control and “Lack of local input” are exactly the issues that I was talking off.
Those that own houses in the forest demand a right to run the Forrest as a private estate. This is I understand (and I am sure you will correct me) a historic privilege. National Park Status national park status threatens this privilege.
I care not for the peerage system, privileges or historic rights. You will not find me on Southampton Common every last Saturday of the month “shooting arrows”.
What I care about is everybody’s right to access this beautiful part of the country and that this access is managed and balanced by people that are willing to, and able to facilitate large numbers of visitors.
Saintly
says...
2:42pm Thu 25 Jun 09
So the 'outside' bureaucrat has gone...good riddance.
Leave the running of the Forest to people who UNDERSTAND the area - Barry Rickman for instance.
Wasting time, money and staffing on trying to implement 'namby-pamby political correctness driven' drivel, like banning dogs from the forest, closing areas of the forest...is ignorant to say the least.
My GF once said (bear in mind he passed away 20yrs ago) - 'soon they'll be charging to use Forest Car Parks'...not far off....
Forest People understand the Forest - elections are required...
Of course she was going to hand over the baton...yeah right.
Saintly
says...
2:48pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Jesus_02 wrote:Not all houses in the Forest hold 'Forest Rights' which are used by 'Commoners' to turn out stock on the forest..common misconception...
Vonnie wrote: Vergers?? Who are they? I thought that once upon a time the New Forest was run perfectly adequately by the Verderers. ie local people. National Park status was thought by some to be of benefit. Those who argued against it could see issues of control and lack of local input like those recently publicised, which would cancel out and negate any benefits. And who were right? Too late, now.Well done Vonnie. You should run for council. You have completely exposed my over use of spell check and therefore undermined any opinion that I may have. Control and “Lack of local input” are exactly the issues that I was talking off. Those that own houses in the forest demand a right to run the Forrest as a private estate. This is I understand (and I am sure you will correct me) a historic privilege. National Park Status national park status threatens this privilege. I care not for the peerage system, privileges or historic rights. You will not find me on Southampton Common every last Saturday of the month “shooting arrows”. What I care about is everybody’s right to access this beautiful part of the country and that this access is managed and balanced by people that are willing to, and able to facilitate large numbers of visitors.
There was never anything wrong with how the Forest was being run before it became a National Park...all the NP has brought is disruption, ill-feeling and confusion.
Exactly the opposite of what it is trying to achieve.
In the Forest now there are families, like mine, who have links going back generations - however families have also moved into the area who contribute to make the Forest what it is.
It is not some Private Members Club where you need to own 5 acres and have a butler to get in.
The doors of the Forest have always been open - people just need to respect it, drive accordingly and take their litter home with them...it isn't Thorpe Park for the M25 set.
sarahJH
says...
2:48pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Maybe the rest of the NPA should resign too, and let the people of the forest, and those who visit it, get back to living our lives, managing our animals, and walking our dogs the way we always have done?
Nothing to say
says...
2:58pm Thu 25 Jun 09
The most important question should be...
Four years down the line, what have been the clear and bankable benefits of the New Forest coming a National Park?
Boris Remmington
says...
3:11pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Saintly
says...
3:11pm Thu 25 Jun 09
(JobCentre's behind Tesco's by the way)..
Jesus_02
says...
3:12pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Saintly wrote:Saintly…I was beginning to appreciate your point of view until the last sentence revealed you as a bit of a... well an idiot I guess.
Jesus_02 wrote:Not all houses in the Forest hold 'Forest Rights' which are used by 'Commoners' to turn out stock on the forest..common misconception... There was never anything wrong with how the Forest was being run before it became a National Park...all the NP has brought is disruption, ill-feeling and confusion. Exactly the opposite of what it is trying to achieve. In the Forest now there are families, like mine, who have links going back generations - however families have also moved into the area who contribute to make the Forest what it is. It is not some Private Members Club where you need to own 5 acres and have a butler to get in. The doors of the Forest have always been open - people just need to respect it, drive accordingly and take their litter home with them...it isn't Thorpe Park for the M25 set.Vonnie wrote: Vergers?? Who are they? I thought that once upon a time the New Forest was run perfectly adequately by the Verderers. ie local people. National Park status was thought by some to be of benefit. Those who argued against it could see issues of control and lack of local input like those recently publicised, which would cancel out and negate any benefits. And who were right? Too late, now.Well done Vonnie. You should run for council. You have completely exposed my over use of spell check and therefore undermined any opinion that I may have. Control and “Lack of local input” are exactly the issues that I was talking off. Those that own houses in the forest demand a right to run the Forrest as a private estate. This is I understand (and I am sure you will correct me) a historic privilege. National Park Status national park status threatens this privilege. I care not for the peerage system, privileges or historic rights. You will not find me on Southampton Common every last Saturday of the month “shooting arrows”. What I care about is everybody’s right to access this beautiful part of the country and that this access is managed and balanced by people that are willing to, and able to facilitate large numbers of visitors.
Who are the M25 and how do identify them?
Further more how can we ensure that they stay in badly light rooms on games consoles?
Links indeed LOL
Jesus_02
says...
3:14pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Saintly
says...
4:07pm Thu 25 Jun 09
The M25 set...cryptically put, agreed, but I meant that the Forest is not a Theme Park for London escapees at the weekends....
Friday evenings across the Forest are like laps around Silverstone...Porsch
e Cayennes exceeding speed limits...so they can meet Hattie and Rupert at the Yacht Club for canapes....
memush
says...
7:45pm Fri 26 Jun 09
To save time and money, how about a complete transfer of the NFNP authority to the SDNP then we can get back to square 1 asap. Its all been near enough OK for the last 900+ years without government quangos interfearence.
More News stories
- Redknapp cleared of tax evasion
- 'I'd rather tell mum I had implant than tell her I was pregnant'
- Bid to shut down sex club
- Raw sewage forces family to flee home
- Civic chiefs spend £135,000 on air fares
- Solar panels to save council £360,000
- Benefits cheat spent £3,700 in swindled cash on drink
- Rock star avoids driving ban
- Prince backs jobs bid
- Ice cream firm moves into new £2.4m home
Lindsay Cornish
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
John Hannides 69 says...
10:25am Thu 25 Jun 09