Guardian online article - group ownership

[Meadowcopse]

http://gu.com/p/3qtc4

[Dexter's Shed]

I think that's a bloody brilliant idea, it would certainly take care of the thought "what happens to my woods when I die" as with that many people looking after it and leaving it to family members, it would continue to be looked after

[oldclaypaws]

In principle it sounds a great way of involving people in a wood and connecting to nature. I'd just question though whether 60 people sharing (and friends & family) means the wood might end up overused, there's going to be an aweful lot of feet trampling on a relatively small space, and as for some of them wanting firewood, 1/60th share of 3 acres doesn't leave much per person, so perhaps all deadwood is 'claimed' or used on campfires.

I think shared or community woods are a great idea, provided the impact on the wood isn't excessive to give the various animal inhabitants and flora 'recovery' time. I'd suggest there's an optimum number of owners per acre, and personally think anything over one / acre might put pressure on the ecology, unless access is rationed.

Looking at the mushrooming price of woods, this might be the only option for many people. I notice a newly listed Somerset woodland by woodlands.co.uk is £39,000 for 3 acres, or £13,000 an acre. Its part of the larger 107 acre Warleigh Wood near Bath which was marketed by Cleggs.

[Meadowcopse]

I've been involved for 20 years with a group formed as an educational charitable trust that started with an ex-Forestry Commission clear felled plot of 28 acres.

Although the mixed woodland planted is reasonably successful, it is easy to loose a year in committee 'non-decisions' and with up to 100+ members, the mix of democracy, technical competency and personalities can be an interesting mix...

[smojo]

It's a nice idea if you've got a limited budget but I wouldn't want to have to organise all those folks and sort out the differences. One of the best things of owning your own is that there's nobody else there if you don't want them to be.

[Dexter's Shed]

It's a nice idea if you've got a limited budget but I wouldn't want to have to organise all those folks and sort out the differences. One of the best things of owning your own is that there's nobody else there if you don't want them to be.

your quite right, but I suppose they idea appeals to me, for when Im gone, as my kids are not really into woods, not unless it has a wi fi network attached to it, then I could see it getting sold off

[SimonFisher]

but I suppose they idea appeals to me, for when Im gone, as my kids are not really into woods, not unless it has a wi fi network attached to it, then I could see it getting sold off

Leave it to someone other than your kids then?

[smudge]

Leaving mine to my family if this generation don't want it the next might the good thing about woodland is you can leave it for years without doing anything it still goes on being buried on mine so will have to see solicitors on how to word it so it stays as it is,

[smojo]

your quite right, but I suppose they idea appeals to me, for when Im gone, as my kids are not really into woods, not unless it has a wi fi network attached to it, then I could see it getting sold off

Similar situation for me. No-one else all that interested but I figured this is about me doing something for me for a change and as it seems a good investment, I'm happy to enjoy it as long as I can and leave it in a better state than when I got it. What happens after that - well no point in thinking about it cos no matter what you might intend for it, there's no guarantee it will happen.

[Zathras]

Interesting approach having so many people involved.

Surely with only 30 days for change of use and 60 people then usage for art classes or such is going to be very difficult to manage?