|
Project Title |
Reactive Weed Maintenance 2023 |
|
Author |
Fenella Lillywhite |
|
Date |
18/09/2023 |
|
Version |
0.1 |
Purpose of This Document
To collate and review the information and feedback from the trial of the reactive weed maintenance undertaken through the weed maintenance season of 2023.
To understand the successes and issues faced by undertaking reactive weed maintenance on select roads.
To present the outcome and conclusions made from this trial.
Trial Overview
The reactive trial worked on the same principle as other highways reactive services, such as potholes, whereby ESCC would only attend to weed control when areas are identified by a highway steward inspection or via a customer report. Weeds would be removed when posing a health and safety risk or potential damage to the infrastructure.
The method of control would vary depending on location but would not include use of Glyphosate.
This was only an option on cul-de-sacs or residential roads with low-speed limits. See Appendix A for list of reactive roads.
Benefits Noted
- No Glyphosate used.
- Appeases residents against the use of glyphosate.
Issues Noted
- Weeds generally worse in paved areas, channels and at property/highway boundaries.
- Large weeds restricting width of pavement causing accessibility issues.
· Public perception e.g. Highways are not undertaking works they are responsible for, cost cutting.
Considerations
· Increase in claims due to trips and hazards on footway.
· Cost increase due to call out for specific tasks.
· Deterioration of assets over time predominantly from roots causing cracking and lifting of pavement.
· Footway accessibility.
· Increase in complaints from those expecting complete weed removal.
Customer Cases
|
Year |
Number of cases to do with weeds in trial areas. |
|
2023 |
7 |
|
2022 |
9 |
|
2021 |
4 |
|
2020 |
6 |
|
2019 |
8 |
There has been no noted increase in customer cases due to the trial.
Resident Feedback
Feedback from residents taking part in the trial has been positive, with many expressing concerns around the use of glyphosate and finding the greener streets visibly more appealing.
Some residents cleared weeds themselves in reactive trial areas, ensuring they do not become too lush.
General Feedback
Although standard case numbers have remained similar to pre-trial levels, the public have voiced their opposition through other routes, such as directly to Members, on Highways Facebook posts, the complaint process and submission of Information Requests.
Contract and Commercial Supervisor Visits
The Contract and Commercial Supervisors inspected the reactive trial locations and noted that generally those that have received no maintenance over the past 2 years have larger weeds which could cause potential deterioration and accessibility issues.
The main areas with issues were generally found to be paved areas. In addition, channels, kerbs and at property/highway boundaries. These areas are noted to be places where soil and detriment can collect allowing weeds to grip and grow.
See Appendix B for comments and C for images.
Costs
Emmanuel Road and St Georges Road in Hastings did not receive Glyphosate sprays in 2022 and 2023 and provide a good example of two years’ worth of growth, see Appendix D and therefore the costs to maintain using a strimmer and removal of foliage.
· £1,356.88 for Emmanuel Road and the footpath located between St Georges Road and St Thomas's Road, Hastings
· £644.79 for St Georges Road, Hastings
The pavement length for both sides of St Georges Road is 734 metres (0.456086 miles). Therefore, if the 1,914 miles of channels, footpaths, central reservations and islands which are currently maintained was considered under the same costs it could be in the region of 49 times more expensive than the current weed spraying service at £55,000.
There is potential for these situations to become more frequent if rolled out wider and weeds are not maintained appropriately, year on year.
Contractor Feedback
The contractor team which visited Emmanual Road and St Georges Road to strim and hand pick weeds found it was impossible to ensure the whole weed had been removed and advised that the area would require spraying.
Outcome & Conclusion
Moving to a reactive approach would lead to a deterioration in asset condition if regular maintenance is not undertaken.
The full impact would take several years to understand, however from the 2-year trial it can be seen in this limited time how weeds can affect highway infrastructure without maintenance.
This therefore presents a safety and accessibility hazard as weed growth can damage paved surfaces, displace kerb stones, and crack walls, all of which make maintenance difficult and costly.
It is therefore recommended that reactive maintenance is not continued at this stage.
