Rental of woodland for one weekend.

[splodger]

i'm not sure that small woodland owners would be able to accomodate a large wedding party. many won't have suitable access, especially for the hgv transport that would be needed to move all of the kit. i doubt that they would have a large enough clearing either.
why not try the national trust - http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/venue-hire/weddings/
failing that - how about trying registered campsites in forest locations - i know there are loads of small sites set in the new forest - which have great access, good clearings, onsite facilities etc - and surrounded by thousands of lovely trees

[William323]

It seems weird that people who clearly have no idea of how the logistics for this will work seem very keen to tell me problems I will encounter. Having been involved in this for a few years I get the logistics, I understand the legal hoops I have to jump through, I have seen what goes wrong when you don't get a TEN.
The need for the TEN means that there is no conflict with the Council, Police or neighbours. In reality I have never seen the neighbours complain only the Council. The Neighbours are not bothered as a chosen venue is always too far away from them to notice and the sound crew know their jobs too well and can sound test to ensure no bleed goes to others' properties. I have already turned one venue down as I knew it wouldn't have been suitable.
The idea that walking in the woods is an inherently dangerous activity is beyond laughable. I live 100m from Epping Forest and have never been injured on any of my walks. I grew up in a small town in Ireland and regularly walked in the woods there too. I am an adult, as are the guests, and we are capable of walking on uneven ground.
I really have a good idea how to plan this to make sure it goes like it should. This is not an ascent of Everest, nor will we need any HGV vehicles, it is only 350 people, it is not the Glastonbury Festival.
The idea that people are going to get as drunk as oldclaypaws says and drive the next day and not be over the drink drive limit is fantasy.
Splodger thank you for some sensible input. We have discussed NT sites but the bride isn't looking for anything that formal. The idea of doing it near a stately home is 180 degrees from what she is looking for. I will have a closer look at the NT but I don't think they rent out small amounts of woodland. Also, I am sure they refuse to tell you the costs until you visit their sites. I think the camp site owners will be as prejudiced as the people here but I will have a look.
With regards to adder bites. I think we really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. According to the Manchester Evening News, 'There have been 14 deaths from British adder bites in the past 100 years – with the last recorded death being in Perthshire, Scotland in 1975.' What next bee stings, lightening strikes and American werewolves?
Going to the English countryside is not an inherently dangerous activity and should be encouraged not discouraged. I hope my girlfriend does not read this as she is always trying to avoid going for walks in Epping Forest. Now I have adder bites to contend with
If you genuinely think that walking in the countryside is rife with danger you really need to explore a bit more of this planet. I can make some suggestions of things I have done but they require a passport and would probably scare you to death.
I get the picture loud and clear. A lot of you don't want to rent woods out. That is fine. But, please don't discourage others with fake scare stories about adders, drunk drivers, and dangerous trees.

[splodger]

i think it would be worth while talking to the NT - in my area they own great swathes of forest / woodland - not within stately home grounds
i'd like to help you out - but our woods would not be suitable at all - and most other woods in that area are actually either part of huge estates or NT managed

[Dexter's Shed]

The idea that people are going to get as drunk as oldclaypaws says and drive the next day and not be over the drink drive limit is fantasy. .

no where within this post does oldclaypaws suggest drink driving,
but I think you have answered your own question, people that own small woods did not buy them to hold large parties on, or if they did, they wont be the sort to post on this forum
I wish you well in your search

[splodger]

The idea that people are going to get as drunk as oldclaypaws says and drive the next day and not be over the drink drive limit is fantasy. .

no where within this post does oldclaypaws suggest drink driving,
but I think you have answered your own question, people that own small woods did not buy them to hold large parties on, or if they did, they wont be the sort to post on this forum
I wish you well in your search

by all means - speak for yourself dex - but don't speak for others - not everybody will share your views

[Dexter's Shed]

by all means - speak for yourself dex - but don't speak for others - not everybody will share your views

that's true, it's only my opinion, it's not carved in stone, I'll wait with anticipation to see if it gets any takers

[oldclaypaws]

I trust you are aware that the 'wedding season' is an almost perfect overlap of the bird nesting season. Because of nesting birds and bats little or no forestry activity takes place in woodlands from spring to late summer.

Any 2 acre wood will contain both tree nesting and ground nesting birds. Under the 1981 Wildlife and countryside Act it is an offense to

"intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird" (Schedule 1 includes basically any wild bird, including even pigeons, crows, mapies & all.)

The penalty that can be imposed for an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine of up to £5,000, and/or six months' imprisonment.

While you might regard the countryside primarily as a great place to have parties, the government has legislation in place to protect wildlife with draconian penalties for those who ignore it, and so far you've made no mention of it so apparently either know nothing about it, chose to ignore it or don't care about it. If you had any awareness of the sensitivities of wildlife I doubt you'd have made your original post. Your 350 people will disturb far more than 350 mammals and birds, its their permanent home and at that time of year they will be raising their young.

All it will take is one twitcher (and the countryside is full of them) who knows the locality, its birds and objects to your 'bash', and you might find yourself in court. As most people living in the countryside are aware of this legislation, it is also a probable grounds for refusing your 'TEN' in the first place.

Did you think of that?

[Whatisheatnow]

William, like John McCormack used to sing, "Come back to Erin, mavourneen, mavourneen", and I'll give you plenty of woodland.

[oldclaypaws]

I would hardly call citing the case for being conscious of wildlife regulation bigotted, more eco-sensitive. Perhaps you also approve of Mr Patterson's proposal to allow the demolition of ancient woodland, provided you replant trees elsewhere.

I've stuck my neck out before to campaign to save woods from inappropriate activity and will continue to do so. Mankind needs to appreciative the planet is there not just as his playground, but for other flora and creatures as well.

[Andy M]

Spodger
Don't be so aggressive - OCP is entitled to his views.

I must agree that the thought of 350 guests in my woodland filled me with horror.