Report
to:
Lead Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment
Date of
meeting: 19 December
2022
By:
Director of Communities, Economy and Transport
Title:
East Sussex County Council’s
Alternative Weed Maintenance Techniques Trials
2022
Purpose:
To report on the outcomes of highway weed control trials and
recommendations for future weed control
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Lead Member is
recommended:
(1)
To note the
feedback, outcomes and challenges from the trials;
and
(2)
To agree to extend
the volunteer streets weed control trial and reactive weed removal
trial to include additional roads to further understand the impact
of not using Glyphosate on the highway
infrastructure.
1
Background Information
1.1.
On 20 September 2021, Councillor Maples and Councillor Hilton
presented a Notice of Motion to the Chairman to eliminate the use
of Glyphosate herbicide formulation in East Sussex County
Council’s (ESCC) weed control.
1.2.
At the meeting on 22 November 2021, the Lead Member for
Transport and Environment recommended rejecting the motion as it is
not possible to completely eliminate use of pesticides but three
trials for alternative weed maintenance techniques in 2022 were
planned with the aim of working towards introducing new methods as
part of the next highway maintenance contract in 2023. The three
trials agreed were a Volunteer Streets weed control trial, a
reactive weed removal trial, and a foam stream weed control
trial.
2 Supporting
Information
2.
2.1.
In line with the County Council Highway Verges and Vegetation
Policy, a single treatment of a Glyphosate based herbicide from the
Health and Safety Executive’s Pesticides Register of UK
Authorised Products suitable for use on highways is used.
Current Weed Maintenance Application and Usage
2.3.
Weed growth in channels (the part of the road in front of the kerb)
can slow down or clog up and prevent the highway drainage system
from working properly. Weeds also damage paved surfaces, displace
kerbstones and crack walls making maintenance difficult and costly.
Weeds can also have safety implications for pedestrians by causing
trip hazards, as well as generally looking untidy.
2.4.
ESCC carry out one weed spray per year on 1,914 miles of channels,
footpaths, central reservations and islands to manage and control
vegetation growth on the highway network, using a herbicide that
contains Glyphosate. Spraying is carefully controlled and only
applied where weeds are found, and not undertaken on windy or rainy
days.
2.5. The herbicide is
applied to weeds in a concentration of 95% water to 5% herbicide,
with a small amount of vegetable oil added for adhesion and spray
control.
2.6. The sprayed herbicide
mixture enters the plant through its leaves and breaks down the
weed’s cell structure to kill the weed over a few days
following application. The application by spray ensures that
all parts of the plant are broken down, including the roots, and
therefore slows down any regrowth.
2.7.
Three alternative methods of weed control were trialled:
2.8.
The Volunteer Streets Opt-out and Reactive trials were undertaken
in appropriately selected locations in Lewes and Hastings, as
agreed with Councillors Maples and Hilton.
2.9.
Trials of a reactive only approach were trialled where weed control
was only undertaken when safety issues were identified through
routine inspections or customer reports.
2.10.
A Foam Steam demonstration / trial was undertaken at the Idverde
Depot in Newhaven and in Mayfield Avenue, Peacehaven.
2.11.
The Equality Impact Assessment for these trials can be found at
appendix 5.
Volunteer Streets
Opt-Out Trial
2.12.
See Appendix 1 for full details of the trial.
2.13.
The opt-out approach gave residents in particular streets the
option to ‘opt-out’ of the Council’s weed
spraying programme and to undertake manual weed control themselves.
To be eligible, agreement of a minimum of 60% of the residents of
the street was required and the resident volunteers would agree to
undertake weed removal. An agreement and guidance were drawn up in
consultation with ESCC Insurance team so that volunteers could be
insured by the Council. Following a short safety training session
and local risk assessment the volunteers were issued with personal
protective equipment and notification documents to be completed
when undertaking clearance works.
2.14.
No safety issues were raised during the trial.
2.15.
Whilst the local residents considered the trial largely successful
the results were variable with some roots left behind which quickly
re-grew and weeds in the channels not removed because of
restrictions working in the road.
2.16.
It should also be noted that this approach relies on the time and
enthusiasm of volunteers which could wane over time and requires
Officer time to administer and monitor.
Reactive
Trial
2.18.
The reactive maintenance trial worked on the same principle as
other highway reactive services, such as pothole repairs, whereby
contractors attended when safety defects were identified by the
Highway Stewards either through routine safety inspections or as a
result of public reports. As such, not all the streets in the trial
received a weed treatment if no weed growth was identified or
notified. Where weeds were identified they were removed either by
hand-pulling or strimming, depending on the location and type of
weeds present.
2.19.
No safety issues were identified with this approach during the
trial but given the ad hoc nature of this approach it was felt
that moving to a reactive approach would most likely lead to an
earlier deterioration in asset condition if regular maintenance was
not undertaken. It would take several years of this approach to
understand the wider impact.
Foam Stream Demonstration / Trial
2.20.
See Appendix 3 for full details of the trial.
2.21.
This was undertaken in conjunction with Lewes District
Council’s ground maintenance contractors and the equipment
manufacturers. While the process itself is effective in killing
weeds it is slow and resource intensive, potentially requiring 30
machines and crews to effectively treat a road network the size of
East Sussex.
2.22.
The cost of this approach is also considerably higher than the
current budget for weed control and it would be a significant
challenge to scale up and deliver the service by the method.
Summary of Trial Findings
2.23.
The summer of 2022 was not a typical summer as it was abnormally
dry (one of the driest on record), and therefore the full effects
and outcomes of the Volunteer Streets and reactive trials cannot be
considered conclusive, and the impact of not using glyphosate to
control weeds will take a number of years to fully understand.
Volunteer Approach
2.24.
The benefits noted included bringing communities together, no
Glyphosate use, and volunteers planning their own weed maintenance
with pride in their community.
2.25.
Several issues were encountered particularly with the insurance
requirements which required a large amount of documentation and
administration by ESCC Officers; restrictions on where volunteers
can weed leading to missed areas; and variation of quality of works
between groups.
Reactive Approach
2.26.
The benefits noted include not using Glyphosate and therefore
providing local areas of biodiversity.
2.27.
Several issues were noted including a potential cost increase
associated with call outs, deterioration of assets over time, and
negative public perception.
Foam Stream Demonstration
2.28.
The benefits noted include not using Glyphosate.
2.29.
Several issues were encountered including the availability of
suitable equipment to scale up to treat the whole network and
increased resources and costs to effectively control weeds across
the whole county. It is therefore proposed to not explore the use
of foam stream further at this time, and until adequate technology
is more readily available.
Additional Research
2.31.
Pesticide Action Network UK state that Glyphosate needs to be
phased out over three years, including trials run over several
seasons. See Appendix 4 for further information.
3.
Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendations
3.1.
The Council noted the concerns of Councillors and residents
relating to the use of Glyphosate and are committed to finding an
alternative means of controlling weed growth, however the Authority
must also meet its statutory duty to maintain a safe and usable
highway network. At the present time, there is no proven
alternative solution that can be effectively used to weed treat a
network of over 1,900 miles of road channels and footways.
3.2.
Therefore, it is recommended that the volunteer streets and
reactive streets trials be extended, increasing the number of
streets involved, to gather more data, monitor the impact and
implement lessons learnt to improve the process. This will allow
the service to see the full impacts of alternative weed treatment
over a number of years and determine how various weed control
techniques can best be applied across the network whilst continuing
to look for new technologies and methods as they emerge. The
Council will continue to use a Glyphosate based herbicide to
control weeds across the highway network, alongside the proposed
extension of the trial of volunteer streets and reactive
streets.
3.3.
Due to the cost and practical issues in using foam stream on a
large highway network it is recommended that that trial is not
extended any further at this stage.
Director of Communities, Economy
and Transport
Contact Officer: Dale
Poore
Tel. No. 01273 481916
Email: dale.poore@eastsussex.gov.uk
LOCAL
MEMBERS
All
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTS
Highway Verges and
Vegetation Policy