Environmental campaigners have said that they were shocked at the number of streets being targeted with chemical weedkiller by Brighton and Hove City Council.
The council started using a targeted method of applying oil-based droplets of glyphosate weedkiller earlier this month after a majority of councillors backed the move in January.
And so far workers have treated 140 streets in Portslade.
Councillors voted to restart using the controversial herbicide after almost five years of unmanaged weed growth which attracted public complaints, unfavourable media coverage and critical comments on social media.
The council said that the “controlled droplet” method used less glyphosate than conventional spraying and was more focused.
The weedkiller is suspended in a non-toxic oil solution and sticks to target plants, producing no breathable droplets.
One of those opposed to using weedkiller again is the artist and Save Our Starlings environmental campaigner Steve Geliot who is concerned about the extent of the area being targeted.
Mr Geliot said that the widespread use of glyphosate goes against the advice given by Southern Water to prevent the area’s vital chalk aquifers from being harmed.
He wants to know the scientific reasons why two areas of the city will not be treated – the centre of Brighton and Hanover and Elm Grove ward.
Mr Geliot said: “The claim is that in the city centre glyphosate isn’t needed because of the higher footfall.
“That bit makes sense – and there is of course also the particular risk to the homeless who sleep on the streets which needs to be considered.
“Then we get to Hanover which just happens to be where Councillor Tim Rowkins lives and represents the ward.
“Now, I really don’t see any more weeds in my neighbourhood than there are in Hanover – and the same could be said for many neighbourhoods which have been marked up for treatment.
“It isn’t scientific and it isn’t consistent. I’m not saying I want Hanover to be subjected to glypho – of course not.
“I wonder what the motivation was behind the officer advice which was given to Councillor Rowkins?
“Were they wanting to help the ward councillor by allowing him to escape confrontations with his neighbours?
“Or perhaps the opposite is true. It was a banana skin designed to cause political embarrassment due to the apparent arbitrariness of the decision. Impossible to say of course, but it is a bit stinky either way.”
Mr Geliot urged people to get together and remove weeds from their streets if they did not want the council to come and use glyphosate.
He said that Councillor Rowkins had supported community efforts but the council itself was slow in helping residents by removing the spoil at the end of a weeding session.
The council has, though, been encouraging people to clear weeds from their streets through the community “tidy up teams”.
Another environmental campaigner, Sylvia Davidson, was concerned about the effect of glyphosate on endangered plants in the areas being targeted.
She said: “The map shows that the council has not considered the reality of the roads nor the ecology.
“The map shows they plan on treating a road just a few metres from an area where a critically endangered plant – shepherd’s needle – grows and that is also home to other rare plants and a host of insects.
“We have a biodiversity crisis in this country, with flying insects down 60 per cent in 20 years. This use of a known poison so close to a vulnerable site shows how little regard the Labour council has for the natural world.”
The council’s websites links to the map as well as listing those areas that will not be targeted such as parks, grass verges and the base of trees.
Councillor Rowkins, the cabinet member for net zero and environmental services, said: “We want to be open and transparent with residents which is why we have published a map outlining which streets have been identified for weed removal.
“Our contractor has now treated around 140 roads in Portslade using a low-glyphosate targeted measure intended to minimise the amount of glyphosate used but to ensure problematic weeds are removed.
“This work will continue across the city over the coming weeks but treatment will only be applied directly to weeds and only where absolutely necessary.
“If our contractor goes to a street and there are no problematic weeds present, no treatment will be applied.”
“The map shows they plan on treating a road just a few metres from an area where a critically endangered plant – shepherd’s needle – grows and that is also home to other rare plants and a host of insects.”
Well Ms Davidson get some of your mates and go and weed those areas yourself.
As the council has said if there are no weeds on a path they won’t use the weed killer in that location.
So why not do like we do at the complex we live at, do some weeding then as you say the council won’t need to use weed killer. But the same people that complain about the controlled use of weedkiller will moan they pay the council to do the weeding. Many pavements are now a danger so something has to be done. Plus the city looks unkept. Brunswick square has it right with a mixture of wild and kept. But opposite Hove Lawns is a mess.
If these protesters are so concerned, perhaps they should go out and clear the weeds themselves.
I keep the weeds down outside my own property by using a hoe, it only takes a few minutes every couple of weeks to go along the gutter and to clear any weeds growing in the pavement cracks. A few other residents, mainly older like me, do so too. Meanwhile, the other houses have two foot high weeds outside. I have plenty of semi-wild parts of my garden for insects and don’t worry about the occasional (well, lots really!) dandelion or daisy.
I like to do some gardening of the paths every couple of weeks when I have a free day. There’s a few older residents in my block who have some mobility issues. I feel its neighbourly to give a few minutes to do something that makes another’s life a bit easier.
Perhaps Save Our Starlings environmental campaigner Steve Geliot could provide details of the advice given by Southern Water to prevent the area’s vital chalk aquifers from being harmed by spraying pavements and gutters with Glyphosate?
It would also be useful for him to explain what this has to do with starlings, and in particular any concrete scientific evidence to support his claims that spraying pavements and gutters affects starlings?
Perhaps Sylvia Davidson could explain how spot spraying weeds on pavements and gutters could harm shepherd’s needle several metres away?
I do wonder if these environmental activists have any scientific education and instead just come up with scaremongering misinformation to support their theories.
It’s made a huge difference already in parts of Portslade, good to see.
And tomorrow
“Council criticised for NOT clearing streets with weedkiller”
The whiplash of sentiment is quite amusing. Think it shows that sometimes the council can’t win regardless of what they do or don’t do.
The map shows that pockets of EVERY ward in the city will have glyphosate used somewhere EXCEPT for Hanover and Elm Grove, which is the ward Councillor Rowkins, who led on the reintroduction of glyphosate, represents (and I believe lives).
Labour made a big political issue about its ‘war on weeds’ ahead of the election, whilst explicitly saying in its manifesto that it won’t reintroduce the toxic and controversial weed killler glyphosate. Then when they do a u-turn and reintroduce it, and residents and Hanover kick back and are up in arms, it’s introduced in every ward except councillor Rowkins.
What is the methodology that means Hanover won’t be treated, when the map suggests Seven Dials will? The council surely can’t just produce a map without explaining the full methodology. Publishing a map isn’t enough. I cannot believe that the footfall in Hanover would be more than there, or areas in central Hove.
Other councils manage proper opt out schemes with no problem, and also have managed to treat weeds using alternatives. Just because Labour stopped using it in 2019, and ignored the advice at the time for it to be a planned phase out, they can’t deflect away from their failures on this. The whole thing has been a car crash and very poorly handled by the administration. How to residents opt out, like Councillor Rowkins seems to have made happen in his own ward??
Just on the point of they said and changes their mind. I think it is a positive thing that an organisation can relook at an aspect and course correct should they need to, rather than stubbornly continue a course of action or inaction that is not working.
Adaptivity is good.
Reviewing things is fine, just in this instance the underlying issue is about putting poison on our streets, poison which evidence shows is linked to cancer and impacting on wildlife – including many lawsuits in the US involving pet deaths. Loads of residents came forward to discuss community initiatives that would address weed problems in the city, they’ve been dismissed.
Like I said, I also find it curious that the only ward with zero glyphosate use is Hanover and Elm Grove – from the outside looking in it does look like a massive case of NIMBYism on the part of the councillor who led on the reintroduction – presumably because he either a) doesn’t want it where he lives; b) he accepts that community initiatives can work and it’s not needed, or c) he wants to save his own political skin because he knows that people who voted for him in good faith are furious about his party’s U-turn (or possibly it’s for all of those reasons).
The prove it’s none of the above, the council should publish its methodology to explain why none is being used in Hanover and Elm Grove so the decision is transparent. It’s good that it isn’t being used there, but how do other areas meet the threshold that his ward has for it not to be used.
Certain area’s are great to be left to go wild, but pavements are not one of them. Brunswick square next to me looks good, certain area’s allowed to go wild with other area’s cut. But Hove Lawns just looks a mess. I say to residents that complain about weedkiller do you keep the area clear in front of the property you live? If everyone did this it would help. Just walk along Brighton and Hove seafront it looks unkept and a mess. Controlled weedkiller keeps certain area’s safe.
I agree with this. Controlled use feels like a reasonable middle ground, as the manual work required wasn’t happening, and unlikely to have happened.
And it’s supposed to only be to a temporary method to get the problem under control after which the more traditional methods – hoeing / burning – can be used.
Great topic…
I have a LOT of knowledge in this area and can help with a few facts…
1) The amount of glyphosate in what’s being sprayed is about 8grams per litre…. (0.8%). A VERY small amount of chemical
2) This WILL NOT get into the water system. In fact, the ONLY problems have occurred in mass farming, when glyphosate tolerant seeds were genetically modified for food production, and so huge amounts of Gly got into the food chain. Only happened in the U.S through Big Agri/Pharma corruption
But…
3) The council choosing to treat in May or June is irresponsible and inefficient. Had they started in March on young weeds…. they’d be eliminated by now and by using 1/10th of the chemical.
Education is required for all…. But regardless, you can sleep easy…. this tiny amount being used will cause zero harm to creatures or planet!!
Hope that helps 🙏
What are your qualifications exactly? There’s lots of evidence and studies out there that show it to be harmful, even used in small amounts.
There are others that say otherwise, but it is noted by multiple scientists that, when it comes to the impact on human health “This discussion has a major drawback, which is the fact that some toxicity studies have the participation of the herbicide industry, which has a commercial interest in maintaining the authorization of its best-selling herbicide.”
We also frequently see BHCC and their contractors make errors – ie mowing wildflower meadows they are not supposed to, the cutting back of the ‘green wall’ which wasn’t a political decision and was a contractor error I believe, so I’m not confident that the application of glyphosate will follow guidance on use either.
Why is BHCC risking it is baffling – when there are alternatives and large numbers of people in the city oppose its use.
So, for next year, they should spray earlier? Other than the weeds being more established if they are left until this later stage, is that an optimisation rather than a prohibitive factor?
BRIGHTON COUNCIL PLEASE LISTEN
Stop swinging between herbicides & manual weeding.
There is a THIRD OPTION.
Take 1 street
Fill ALL the cracks where seeds can fall in with a compound
Take street 2
Try a 2nd compound filler
Street 3
Try a 3rd compound filler
See which street is successful and then you have got out of this stalemate. You dont have to spray and you dont have to manually weed.
Then the rest of the country can copy your plan!! You will become famous as the people who solved this problem. You will be the great ones. Please it will be very cheap to apply this to 3 streets. Please do this.
Please can everyone get the main decision makers to hear this new idea.
Thank you everyone.