Contractors are expected to start using an oil-based version of glyphosate weedkiller on the streets of Brighton and Hove within months.
Brighton and Hove City Council will have to find an estimated £300,000 in the budget for the coming financial year to pay for the push to tackle the burgeoning weeds.
Councillors voted for the return of the controversial herbicide at a meeting at Hove Town Hall today (Tuesday 23 January) almost five years after a decision was made to end its use.
The vote followed five years of unmanaged weed growth, which drew half a dozen plaudits but dozens of formal complaints including two insurance claims, one of which ended in a £210 payout.
The council and the city has attracted unfavourable coverage on social media and in traditional media, with complaints including damage to paths, kerbs, roads, walls and other infrastructure.
The decision – by the council’s City Environment, South Downs and the Sea Committee – to employ contractors reflects the struggle that the council has had in recruiting people to remove the weeds manually.
The contractors will be expected to use a “controlled droplet” approach with the herbicide – sold commercially as Roundup – applying it to individual weeds rather than spraying it as previously.
Environmental campaigners gathered outside Hove Town Hall before the meeting this afternoon to voice their disapproval.
Labour councillor Tim Rowkins, who chairs the committee, said that it was necessary to keep parks and open spaces glyphosate-free and that the council was committed to doing so.
He said that other councils – including in East Sussex, Oxford and Edinburgh – had reintroduced the weedkiller after failing to find a viable alternative.
Councillor Rowkins said: “A conventional glyphosate application would have been the easiest option. It’s what we used to do. It’s what the vast majority of other councils do. We know it works and it is cost-effective.
“But I and the other members of this committee take concerns around safety and biodiversity extremely seriously.
“That is why we have gone above and beyond to find a way forward that substantially reduces any health and safety risk and potential impact on biodiversity.”
The controlled droplet method uses less glyphosate but is more focused. It is suspended in a non-toxic oil solution and sticks to target plants, producing no breathable droplets.
The roots of the council’s invasive problem can be traced to a pledge made by candidates of all political colours in the run up to the 2019 election. Dozens backed the pledge drafted by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) to ban glyphosate.
The organisation, though, proposed a phased approach rather than the “cliff-edge” halt to chemical use that the council pursued five years ago.
Councillors said that there had not been a significant problem with weeds when the ban was introduced.
But lower footfall in many places during the coronavirus pandemic and difficulties recruiting staff meant that the weeds took hold and have become more resilient.
Green councillor Sue Shanks said that, after reading the Rachel Carson book Silent Spring in the 1970s, she had become concerned about chemicals that kill animals, particularly pollinators. The book was published in 1962 and remains influential.
Councillor Shanks said: “The controlled droplet application, the option you (Labour) are going for, may not be effective in removing weeds compared to traditional glyphosate.
“It is an untried and untested way to manage weeds on hard surfaces on a large scale. Because of this, more applications are required.”
A report to councillors said that three applications would be required this year.
Councillor Shanks called for an “opt-out”, with residents allowed to clear the weeds in front of their own homes rather than have weedkiller applied.
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said that the number one complaint from Patcham residents was the state of weeds on the pavements and high grass blocking access to benches by bus stops.
She said: “The whole of the city looked a terrible disgrace. Even around Hove Town Hall looked terrible.
“The council has an equalities duty to keep the highways clear of obstructions, so this should be done.”
Labour councillor Ty Galvin, who is also vice-chair of the Brighton and Hove Older People’s Council, said that both he and his wife often have to walk in the road because of uneven pavements and weeds blocking their way.
Councillor Galvin said: “As a result of us not treating the weeds over the years, we have confined people to their houses because of that fear of tripping in the streets.
“The method we are considering using is the most considerate method available and it will improve the situation.”
The committee unanimously voted to continue the ban on using glyphosate in parks and open spaces except to manage invasive species.
Councillor Shanks was the only member to support a policy of continuing with manual weed removal while Councillor Theobald backed Labour’s proposal to try the controlled droplet approach to killing weeds.
Labour and Councillor Shanks voted against a return to traditional glyphosate spraying, with Councillor Theobald abstaining.
The absolute state of that blue rinse rent-a-mob.
They look like ordinary middle aged women to me. You must scare very easily.
So you disagree with them. Why the need to slag them off based on their age and the fact they’re wearing warm clothes in winter?
I also disagree with the protesters but I respect those who think differently to me. Unlike you apparently.
Couldn’t have thrased that better…,our roads looked like slums areas ,the more weeds the more rubbish was dropped and built up round the weeds
I cleaned my own bit of pavement ,but I pay council tax to have it cleaned…
Should make the Greens happy!
Fantastic news – common sense, pragmatism, and proper scientific evidence finally wins over scaremongering misinformation from anti-pesticide activists.
The “proper” scientific evidence can be found at The World Health Organisation International Agency for Research O Cancer. This research is why the Glyphosate manufacturers are losing millions of dollars in lawsuits. There is a risk that our council might be subject to similar claims in the future. “we will not return to the use of harmful Glyphosate” – Labour councillors own manifesto promise. “Harmfull” – they know full well that it is a risk with our health for Non Hodgkins Lymphoma and reduced birth weights.
The WHO only said it was probably carcinogenic based upon limited evidence – see https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/
However, this evidence was sufficient for the US courts to rule against the manufacturers hence the vast liabilities in judgement. Probably cause cancer is a horrible idea to spread all over our streets anyway surely?
Yeah, that’s the second-highest category. I wouldn’t get caught up in the semantics too much. Still, considering the oil-based delivery of this chemical, I’d be interested to read up on if this is a reasonable preventative to ill-health effects.
This is a good news story – a common sense win. Cities are made for people to live in and when some start to be excluded because of the poor state of our pavements that is inexcusable. Now if Labour could just see sommon sense on VG3.
Indeed so!
How can cllr Mute and head of Transport, Mark Prior, justify this when they know it will create a £6million burden on the local taxpayer, which will of course grow larger over time? The Council’s own consultants said removing the roundabout would create more congestion and pollution. Two thirds of respondents said they wanted to keep the roundabout – why have the Council acted against the interests of taxpaying residents.
Is there something more devious behind their decision?
You wonder if it’s trying to make their potential MP candidate a little greener in a green stronghold, (he is strangely quite). Whatever some claim local decisions do impact on the local MP election. Apart from this it seems the most absued decision by this administration, applauded when they paused the scheme 8 months ago for further consultation they literally return after 8 months with the same scheme. Perhaps it was pressure from the transport department who will not let this go.
The trouble with the Transport dept is that it is overpopulated. Stuffed full of sustainable transport zealots who hate motorists. It is unaccountable for its actions and intends for that to stay the case .
Strangely, according to his list of interests, Muten is a ‘Chartered Environmentalist’. I wonder how that sits with all the pollution he has decided to wreak upon the centre of Brighton?
Labour backsliding again. This time poisoning our streets.
The story is about Roundup, not roundabout.
On a financial issue £210’s is a relatively small amount to pay out in compensation as opposed to £300,000, debt that the tax payer in Brighton & Hove will have to pay through increased Council Tax.
On a Health & Safety issue it is much better to be safe than sorry by not using Toxic Chemicals either in our homes, gardens or in communal walkways and green spaces, these green spaces are home to wild life that are vulnerable to extinction through toxic chemicals and also walking areas for cats & dogs. Children walk and sometimes play in these areas. There is a lot of evidence by Scientists and environmentalists that this chemical is dangerously toxic. It is only the Manufacturers & some Labour Councillors who deny it is toxic & want to use it supported by some of the public who want it to be used for their own reasons.
Great news, the impact of people tripping, falling, and being unable to access local communities plus the damage to pavements also has significant environmental impact. The north of the city- with some of the oldest residents in this city has not been weeded for over 4 years. The full and devastating impact on certain residents won’t be available due to lack of accessible reporting/response (previous green councillors actively ignored/supressed this issue) and paltry payouts are not an incentive to persue a complaint. None the less injuries, isolation, having to use cars because you can’t use your pavement/access your bus/community also have significant health and environmental consequences. Hopefully this is the start of more joined up rather than ideology based (screw the real/wider impact) thinking from the council?
Trip hazards.. I get it more than many. It’s a very real life-limiting concern.
Wildlife, the environment and our children.. surely we’re begging for no more chemicals please?
In the absence of hedgerows etc. we all know we really do need some wildflowers, weeds, and insect incentives.
Brighton and Hove Council.. would it really be so hard to organise/coordinate some hand-pulled weeding? Perhaps a brownie point scoring model for society.. re-hab for those who could benefit from it, activities for the lonely, fitness inspiration, a bit of self respect… and a dollop of funding toward more eco friendly approaches?
Once upon a time we were a community.. give me strength..