Tree removal - who should pay?

[cornflakegirl]

My neighbour has a patch of land between the side of his house and our driveway, about 1m wide. It has a number of conifers on it. They have been there for 20 years apparently. The trees are too big for the space. We have to trim them back regularly. Neighbour can't access them for maintenance without going on our land. Cutting back to the boundary removes all the green on that side, leaving just bare branches. They provide no privacy or shade.

We have had a chat with the neighbour and he is happy for the trees to be removed. Who should pay? (If it's relevant, we have just paid to replace a damaged fence on the same boundary. It isn't marked on our deeds which of us has the responsibility to maintain the boundary.)

Surely if they’re on his land then he should pay?

Do you trim them yourself or pay someone to do it?

Depends who wants them removed as well I guess

If they're your trees then you pay.

If they're his trees and you want them gone, then you offer to pay if he's willing to let them go.

You could ask him to go halves and see what he says?

If you want them gone then you should pay- he has to stop them causing a nuisance, trim them etc...but to remove them at your request would be your cost

They're his trees on his land.
He doesn't maintain them. We chop them back when they start to black our path.
We want them gone. He doesn't care. He can't see them, except from the road.

If you want them removing I think you need to pay. I assume he was happy with the trees until you mentioned it?

We could cut them right back to the boundary and then continue the fence past them. It would be cheaper, but it would then be very hard for him to reach them. And I imagine the branches would damage the fence after a while.

OP, I suppose you have to think about what you would find reasonable if the roles were reversed.

Would YOU be happy to pay for the removal of trees from your land at the request of a neighbour, if they weren't inconveniencing you?

If you honestly and truthfully think "yes, I would be prepared to shoulder the entire cost in order to do my neighbour a favour" then you can go ahead and ask.

But tbh, I think in this instance, YOU want the trees to come down, YOU should be the one to pay. Your neighbour is being quite gracious in allowing you to destroy his trees - it's a bit rich to expect him to pay for the privelegde as well.
I think you

If you want them gone then you pay .

We want them gone. He doesn't care

Based on that, if you want them removed, you pay.

He doesn't care, and you can't force him to remove them. If removing them is going to cost him ££££ then he just won't bother.

You can try suggesting 50:50, but realistically, if you want them to go, you will most likely have to pay the cost for it.

Cutting them completely back seems the best option, as for providing no privacy surely if they were removed altogether there would be no privacy

As you say they are big and right next to his house wall perhaps pointing out the potential of damage to his house foundations from roots will provoke him into action and paying himself?

FineWords - in a previous house we removed some leylandii at the end of the garden because they had got stupidly tall and were shading neighbours garden. They didn't cause us a problem. We didn't ask neighbours to pay anything.

I'm pretty sure he would pay / contribute. I'm trying to work out what would be fair. I'm leaning towards 50 / 50 because it's for our benefit, but I feel he is unreasonable to have such big trees in such a small space.

A cheaper alternative option would be to raise the tree canopy to about 15 feet from the ground so the branches don't interfere with you fences. Would that be a good compromise?

Well in this scenario 50/50 would be ideal, but if he resists this proposal I think you will have to cover the entire bill, as you want them removed and he isn't bothered by them.

Only - they are along the wall of his house, and it has no windows, so no privacy to disturb.

Grumpy - yes, I did mention that! Seemed a bit foolish. But our driveway on the other side is paved and doesn't have any obvious problems.

longtime - they are conifers, about 12 ft tall probably. I don't think we could raise the canopy (branch growth starts about a foot up). I'm no gardener though, so happy to be proved wrong.

If they are on his land, all you have a right to do is keep trimming to the boundary.

If you want to remove them, ask them if you can - but you can't insist and you certainly can't expect them to remove them or pay for their removal just because you don't like them and it would be really unreasonable for you to do so.

We've just removed some trees to appease a neighbour (i would avoid neighbour disagreements at all cost - can't think of anything worse). We knew they were dying and planned to remove them, but our neighbour didn't know is that DH has been working 20 hours a day and I have a disability. We are also parents to very young children and the cost of having someone else remove the trees (only option) was out of our budget. So think on before you make a fuss

Offer half each

I'm curious who was there first, you or the trees??

We want them gone. He doesn't care

Then you pay.

He doesn't care, but is happy for you to sort it. You sort it and you pay.

you pay as you want them gone. the trees are on his land and hes not bothered by them and therefore doesnt have to do anything!

You want them gone, you pay. And count your lucky stars that your neighbour is willing to let them be removed.

You can raise the canopy (just chopping off all the lower branches) to about 6 foot then, is it just that the branches are damaging your fence or is it the mess from the trees?