The cost of leaving weeds untreated could be as high as £60 million in Brighton and Hove, councillors were told during the annual budget meeting.
The figure emerged when Labour councillor Tim Rowkins who said: “Uncontrolled weed growth is one of the primary causes of damage to our pavements.
“We currently spend £50,000 a month on reactive repairs to pavements. We have a backlog of repairs totalling £60 million.
“I’ll leave it to your imagination what would happen to that number if we failed to act – but ignoring the problem is just not serious policy-making.”
Councillor Rowkins, who chairs Brighton and Hove City Council’s City Environment, South Downs and the Sea Committee, was responding to an attempt by the Greens to divert money from weedkiller use.
When the Greens took charge of the council in 2020, he said, they had acted “as though the weed problem in the city did not exist”.
The council stopped using glyphosate, a controversial herbicide also known as Roundup, in 2019 after councillors of all colours backed a ban during the election campaign.
When spraying stopped with no effective replacement, pavements became overrun with weeds, most notably in the suburbs, and plant life sprouted on kerbs and in gutters across Brighton and Hove.
During the local election campaign last year, the weeds – and Brighton and Hove’s “rewilded” streets – became more of an issue with voters than weedkiller had been four years before.
In January, the City Environment, South Downs and the Sea Committee voted to start using glyphosate again.
The plan is to treat weeds on pavements using a “controlled droplet” method, with the weedkiller suspended in an oil-based medium and sprayed directly on to the plants. Previously, glyphosate was sprayed indiscriminately from quad bikes.
The proposals nonetheless led to protests outside the meeting – and a petition on the Change.org website, objecting to the return of “toxic weedkillers”, has more than 6,500 signatures.
Green councillor Kerry Pickett told the budget council meeting on Thursday (22 February) that scores of wildlife and environmental groups were against the return of the herbicide.
They included the Brighton Downs Alliance, the Beacon Hub Rottingdean, Benfield Hill Wildlife and Conservation Group and the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership.
Councillor Pickett said: “I’d like to ask that the council listens to these voices and responds by taking the right course of action which is to reconsider the £266,000 set aside for – in Brighton and Hove Labour’s own words – ‘harmful glyphosate’.
“Consider our amendment that includes repurposing some of this money to provide investment in the city’s carbon-neutral 2030 and circular economy programme.”
Labour councillor Theresa Fowler said that this year was a “reset year” for weed management. She added that glyphosate would not be used in green spaces and parks but on pavements which, she said, “are not meant to be rewilded”.
Councillor Fowler said that, as much as she liked to see wildflowers growing out of the pavement, she had also seen photographs of people’s injuries suffered after tripping over weeds.
She said: “If there are no weeds on the pavement, little or no treatment will be needed. Over the past year, we have tried many different ways of removing the weeds and have talked to staff who have told us manual weeding is not working.
“Many of them have suffered with repetitive strain injury and can only do this work for two hours.”
The council used a weed-ripping machine but it took only the tops of the plants, leaving the roots to regrow. It also damaged pavements.
Councillor Fowler said that she was aware that farmers in the area were still using Roundup as it was not banned and the council was working with its farm tenants to reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides.
Get on with it !!!! Greens, Didn’t they get ousted for being inept? Go back to Hampshire!!!!!
The pavements in my street are weed free mainly due to cars parking on them. They’re in urgent need of repair tho.
If that twitten , Councillor Atkinson is staring down , was wide enough there would be car parked in it .
Just cancel VG3 – that would make £6m available
It wouldn’t though. Various people have been through this with you a few times over the last couple of weeks.
Stop lying , Benjy Boy. VG3 will cost the local taxpayer £6m +
“Cllr Fowler said that she was aware that farmers in the area were still using Roundup”. Just a cheap distraction, sounds more like: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others”.
It’s not just the pavements, how much damage is being done to the gutters and drains? That’ll be more money needed for repairs, and whoever is responsible for doing the work ultimately gets their funds from us, the taxpayers. If the weeds are sprayed and die the dead plants still, ideally, need to be swept away so they don’t end up in the drains. If the weeds are removed manually they should still be swept up and taken away, not just left to be washed into the drains. When the grass verges are mowed (once or twice a year where I live) the cuttings are just left strewn across the pavements where they end up in the drains.
Before anyone comments about self-help, yes, I do clear the pavement and gutter outside my property and that of my elderly neighbours.
Councillor Fowler is not making excuses. As a resident rep and Secretary of Hollingdean Residents Association I work with her and our 2 other ward councillors on a regular basis.
I have found her to be an honest hard working and pricipalled councillor. She also lives in the real world.
Unlike the previous Green administration she does not live in a world where weeds dissapear miraculously all by rhemselves
Pavement parking is a far bigger cause of damage to pavements than street plants. Climate change related extreme weather – flooding caused by intense rainfall and the effect of heatwaves – is a far greater cause of damage than street plants. That the number of SUV’s in this country increased last year by 20% is a far greater cause of damage to our roadways than street plants.
Rather than tackling these issues – which will mean tackling profligate and squanderous car culture, the Labour Party are taking it out on our street level biodiversity.
The figures given in the article are so speculative that they amount to scaremongering.
Labour know the have done A Bad Thing in direct opposition to their published manifesto and are doubling down with misinformation and spin to try to create some justification after the event.
Badly done.
Talking out of yer Arris as per usual.
Most people drive SUVs in order to navigate the poor roads with potholes and blocked gullies. Safety first!
Additionally heavier EVs and buses cause more wear on roads and leave lots to rubber particles which are as bad as smoking 20 a day.
I was reading that many people use larger vehicles for comfort and accessibility, such as older drivers. Ultimately though, I don’t think establishing blame on things that are unlikely to ever change is particularly useful.
I think the controller droplet method and targeted issue is a reasonable compromise.
Pavement parking remains an issue, we mitigated it in our area through tactical planting of trees and organic barriers, in conjunction with some enforcement. It has definitely made a positive impact.
Don’t worry Cllr Muten has the answer,do away with the Palace Pier Roundabout! Sack him.
Would be interested to know why wildlife and environmental groups were against the return of the herbicide?
Were they, like the Greens who instigated the ban, ignorant about Glyphosate and how it works, and just blindly accepted scaremongering misinformation from anti-pesticide activists at Brighton based Pesticide Action Network UK?
Yup people who are so desperate to “make a difference”
Personally, I read meta-analysis information on the subject and came to the conclusion that it was better to not use it, however, practicalities and a pragmatic approach means that for pavements, I believe the controlled drop method is a reasonable compromise.
Funnily enough, it was Labour who stopped using glyphosate in 2019. With the Greens’ support. Anne Pissaridou was the Labour Councillor who pushed it through.
I’m not a fan of glyphosate, and I weed the path and gutter outside my home, but the present mess is not (no pun intended) sustainable.
Yes, parked cars also damage pavements and kerbs, particularly the growing fleet of much heavier electric cars and the proliferation of delivery vans, but that’s no excuse to ignore the damage caused by poor weeding.
If I were Labour, I would crowdsource, first of all, asking residents and councillors to flag up where the problem is worse. Then, I’d employ a dedicated team and get them to tackle those hotspots, while making sure there was a proper rolling programme of routine weed treatment street by street running alongside it.
At the same, there ought to be monthly volunteer sessions in the summer where people can get together if they wish to help out during this catch-up phase.
Exactly!
Why on earth would wildlife and environment groups oppose a chemical poison which holds responsibility for the devastation of nature on a global scale, the depletion of species and the destruction of soil quality and structure to the extent that our future harvests are becoming limited to double figures.
Why would they oppose a toxic mix linked to cancer in humans?
Why oh why would they think that labour should have stuck to its manifesto promises and not declared chemical warfare on our street level biodiversity?
Just can’t fathom it….
Glyphosate is only “toxic” to plants – it’s a herbicide.
How is it “poisonous”?
Yes, the IARC classes Glyphosate as probably carcinogenic, but if usage recommendations are followed then risks are minimal to operatives, and there are many higher risk agents including sunlight, alcohol, fried food, engine exhaust, tobacco, processed meat, and various viruses.
Which species have been depleted?
How does Glyphosate “destroy soil quality and structure”?
“future harvests are becoming limited to double figures” is meaningless waffle.
What has any of this got to do with spot spraying weeds on pavements and gutters?
Yes – plenty of a scaremongering misinformation from you there – are you employed by PAN UK?
There is a growing body of evidence showing the effect of glyphosate on humans (ref. World Health Org.), the environment & wildlife (https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-finds-glyphosate-likely-injure-or-kill-93-endangered-species-2020-11-25/), the health risk to workers a particular concern (ref. (https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/glyphosate). The council has to decide on whether to take those risks with its people.
The precautionary principle should be applied, with alternatives tried first. It’s not about spraying chemicals or abandoning treatment to allow weed-choked paths. For example:
– Put wire brushes on the quad bikes, as used elsewhere
– Spot treatments with hoes by the street-sweepers on their rounds
– Repairing pavements & verges to prevent weeds exploiting the cracks
– Ban pavement-damaging car-parking to save £ – the average weight of a car is about 2 tons (ref. https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/whats-the-average-weight-of-a-car-89728), that’s a damaging bill for council taxpayers.
PhilB, BDA.
Thanks Phil – plenty of historical stuff that I recall then Labour councillor Anne Pissaridou referenced 5 years ago when she introduced the usage ban by council operatives on council managed land without having determining a practical alternative.
Anyone else is free to use Glyphosate anywhere including, but not exclusively, pavements and gutters outside their homes.
Hoes and wire brushes have been tried by the council, require multiple use because roots aren’t killed, can not be used around vehicles, harms wildlife, is labour intensive and, as we’ve seen, doesn’t work as well as chemical herbicides.
Glyphosate is still legal to buy and use in the UK, the EU, and the USA and, in particular, the EU recently extended the approval for another 10 years, much to the annoyance of Brighton based Pesticide Action Network UK.
As with all chemicals (and everything is made of them) care needs to be taken and usage instructions followed – think of most cleaning products, caustic soda, bleach, and petrol.
Wow you’re now aiming to be the argus with your ridiculous baiting headlines and campaigns huh.
Come back to us when you have gone back to actual journalism
Haha, you truly are lost! I mean,talk about shooting the messenger. They literally reported what a Councillor says, and somehow that’s clickbait 🤣
Besides, even if the figure is overstated, which I suspect it is, the essential point is valid. Untended weeds or plant growth can damage everything from pavements, kerbs and gutters to walls and other infrastructure. It’s like this generation has lost the lasting wisdom of the ages, that held until even 10 years ago or so.
“This generation has lost the lasting wisdom of the ages”
Really?
Pesticide use is an utterly modern scourge. People have managed to get around on footways, cultivate land and generally not feel the need to poison plants just for existing for thousands of years. It is only in the last 40 years that glyphosate has even existed.
To say that some ancient wisdom is implicated in this crime is fatuous and plainly untrue.
Do me a favour Conan the Fruition shut up with your righteous indignation and live in the real world.
I remember not so long ago when the Green Administration were calling for weed warriors to go out and clear weeds on every pavement in the city.
I pointed out at the time that residents pay council tax to provide these services.
We have an increasingly elderly population in this city who cannot physically go out and clear weeds without risking there own health.
This problem was created by Green Council ignoring this fact and allowing weeds to run wild.
Until a viable alternative is found and tested, targeted glyphosphate treatment is logical. That bill is simply eye watering and brings in to focus the need to sort this now.
How can clearing pavements of weeds cost £60 million. Employ 100 weedkillers at £30,000 per annum only comes to £3 million. Even if you add on employers contributions to NI and pensions at approximately 15% it still comes in at £3.45 million pounds. So where does the other £56.55 million got to?
There will be additional costs to repair the pavements in terms of materials and work. No idea if that is close to what they estimate but it’s unlikely to be cheap given it’s a citywide problem.
They’re talking about the costs of repairing the damaged pavements and drains after years of neglect, not the cost of removing the weeds.
£60 million? Really? Very silly figure out of thin air, and I don’t believe that the CFO came up with this figure.This doesn’t bode well for the arrogant and unilateral passing by Laboutr of their budget, which didn’t take on a single idea or initiative from anyone else. You could replace every pavement and mend every pothole in the city for that., and have plenty of change over. Would suggest that the councillor has another look at the sums , knocks at least one zero off the end and wonders how he could utter such rubbish. As for Phil above, the reality is that they don’t repair pavements (presumably they have no budget for it) and, although I haven’t seen a street sweeper for ages, the other reality is that the one who did used to come round was a zombie with earphones who moved like a tortoise and ignored most of the weeds, and a fair bit of the rubbish too.
The pavements in Brighton are the worst condition I have seen in any city, especially in Regency Square and on the sea front. The majority of the slabs are poorly laid and seem to be of inferior quality given their propensity to crack. The quick fix of applying tarmac over a large area of pavement on the seafront looks appalling and a private householder would never get away with such shoddy work in a conservation area.
It just shows the perverse attitude of the public works people in B&H council and the councillors that they will spend millions on underused cycle lanes while letting the pavements (and the roads for that matter) badly deteriorate. Just not good enough.
This is the age of wholesale disinformation, most of it probably for nefarious reasons by people with little else to do in life, like the ‘rent a mob’ protesters
Hear hear!
What IS wrong with the council? Why can’t they properly weigh up the benefits of using chemicals v not using them. It seems they just lurch from one solution or excuse to another, running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. What is this new oil-based method they are looking at? Have they properly evaluated it. What’s the cost? Abd what are other councils doing? I found this with a simple google search!!
https://www.pitchcare.com/blogs/news/mankar-ulv-weed-sprayer-praised-by-luton-council
Someone do some proper research. I wonder how much was spent on weed grabbing machines??
Utterly fed up of it. And don’t get me started on the potholes in East Sussex as a whole.
Just get on and do it. People fed up with these minority environmental groups wrecking our town. Majority of people would say go ahead
If manual weeding was done as the main community payback activity it would work. Especially if it meant that the justice system could dish out greater punishment. At the moment punishment costs government money but making people work on the street supervised by police gets the police in patrol, humiliates the offender, teaches the offender to care for the city and it saves the government a lot of money.
It saves the government money on pathway repairs and paying for people to be in prison. It also could be extended to badly behaved teenagers who could do one short stint each time they do antisocial behaviour that causes trauma to elderly etc.
Because what happened in Brighton is now happening across the country, the government should change the justice system so that community payback work can become much more extensiive to help all the local councils that are currently struggling to maintain the cleanliness of the streets.