Bad parking is more likely to have added to the pavement repairs backlog than the weedkiller ban, the Green Party said.
And the damage from bad parking shows up because weeds then grow through the cracks, the party added.
The Greens accused Labour of “falsely blaming” a £60 million bill for pavement repairs on weeds to justify a return to using a toxic herbicide.
Labour said that it had reluctantly decided to go back to using glyphosate – commonly known as Roundup – in a more targeted form to make paths and pavements safe.
The Greens said: “Claims weeds are one of the main causes behind a £60 million pavement repair backlog have been criticised by Green councillors who say Labour are making unsubstantiated public statements to justify a return to using toxic chemicals in the city.
“Despite Labour previously voting to ban the use of glyphosate on pavements in Brighton and Hove over serious health concerns, the current Labour administration recently voted to re-start using the controversial weedkiller – and spend upwards of £260,000 each year doing so.
“During a heated recent meeting, Labour’s Tim Rowkins, chair of the environment committee, claimed the council was spending £50,000 a month on reactive repairs to pavements and that uncontrolled weed growth was one of the primary causes behind a £60 million backlog.
“However, a ‘freedom of information’ (FoI) request submitted to the local authority has since found the council holds no data to support Councillor Rowkins’s claims that weeds are to blame.
“The FoI request asked for a breakdown in cost of damage due to plants growing in pavements for each financial year dating back to 2013-14.
“The response confirmed the council does not ‘record defects based on their cause’.
“This, argue Green councillors, proves Labour is not in a position to blame the backlog on weeds over other more likely causes, such as an increase in pavement parking, expanding tree roots or a lack of investment in the city’s ageing streets.
“The same FoI request also asked for a breakdown of the annual amount spent on pavement repairs during the same period.
“The council’s response showed a similar figure spent each year – with a low of £412,000 in 2018-19 to a high of £1.6 million in 2015-16.
“In fact, eight of the ten years covered by the FoI request showed a council spend of between £1 million and £1.4 million, suggesting the annual spend was largely unimpacted by Labour’s previous decision to ban glyphosate in 2019.”
Labour said that the financial cost alone “was never a primary justification” but the question had arisen at the annual budget council meeting last month when the focus had been on money.
Councillor Kerry Pickett, who represents the Greens on the City Environment, South Downs and the Sea Committee, said: “It is becoming clear Labour will say anything to justify their decision to instruct council staff to start using glyphosate again – a decision which is not only unpopular with residents but potentially harmful to them as well.
“To say there is a £60 million backlog in pavement repairs which is primarily caused by weed growth is simply not backed up by any data currently held by the council – something it took an FoI request to uncover.
“It is far more likely that pavement parking – something we know is becoming more and more common on our streets – is causing most of the damage and leaving cracked pavements which, if not repaired quickly, then see weeds growing through the gaps.
“Labour backed itself into a corner by promising to rid the city of weeds and, in a desperate attempt to avoid another embarrassing manifesto u-turn, they are trying to justify using glyphosate in whatever way they can – despite the fact, I may add, that not using glyphosate was also one of their pre-election promises.
“Labour need to stop misleading residents and instead use a robust data-driven approach to identify the actual cause of pavement damage and do something about it rather than just conveniently pin the blame on weed growth in the hope that people will be more likely to accept them using toxic chemicals on our streets.”
Councillor Rowkins said: “The FoI request simply said that we don’t record data on whether a specific piece of damage is caused by ‘plants’.
“But the council’s transport department – the team that are out every day inspecting and repairing our streets – has been very clear that weed growth, which has been uncontrolled for five years, is now causing damage and contributing to the £50,000 per month bill.
“While the driving factor of our new approach to weed management is to ensure that the city’s roads and pavements are safe and accessible for everybody, a secondary objective is absolutely bringing down the cost to the council of repairs to damaged footways.
“The Greens have consistently pretended that there isn’t a problem with weeds and are in denial about their failure to deal with the problem when they were in office.
“They have also not proposed any viable alternative to our plan and continue to just ignore the issue, to the detriment of many of our most vulnerable residents.
“Indeed, the Greens voted at committee in support of the option that officers clearly stated would not solve the problem.
“We are taking a more responsible approach that will get the problem back under control, using a far safer and more targeted application than ever before.
“We will then reduce the use of herbicides in a managed and responsible way while making sure our streets remain accessible to all of our residents.”
Typical – bounce the blame back to it’s citizens. Do your jobs, you cretins. It was obvious to anybody not hypnotised by a reliable local-government paycheck for minimal effort that left unchecked, the bill to repair would grow larger the more root systems took hold. Are they somehow unfamiliar with how plants work? This is what happens when you take something away which previously worked and didn’t have a firm plan for a viable alternative. Good job, you are now every middle-manager ever.
Do you realise that it was Labour who brought in the ban on Glyphosate back in 2019, not the Greens?
True, but under instruction from the Greens as part of the secret Labour-Green coalition agreement.
The ban was supposed to be introduced when a practical alternative had been developed, but then lead of the ETS committee Labour Party councillor Anne Pissaridou stopped it’s use without reference to the committee or affected ward councillors.
Correct, but you must consider the ‘Greens’ did nothing to address the weed problem. What did they call it, oh yes re-wilding, the perfect solution.
True.
In our area there is no one parking on the Pavements! All the damage/problems are caused by needs and Tree roots!!!
Blame bad parking…
In a twitten?
Blame bad councillors…
Twits!
We stopped most of the verge parking in our area through organic barriers, judicious ticketing, and a neighbour who has a personal vendetta against poor drivers.
Hahahahaha poor deluded muppets. Keep them away from the real world.
I would like a ban on pavement parking, but for a different reason, not weeds.
Same. Especially when it blocks the safe traversal of things like mobility scooters, or forces people onto the road to get around the cars. However, I also suspect that we have plenty of roads that need changing with markings before that could happen, lest we have roads that simply cannot function in their current state.
The Greens are fruitcakes who should never be allowed to hold public office
Very true.
They must have been very small cars to have fitted down the twitten illustrated…
Cllr Tim Rowkins attended a meeting in Hanover last Thursday and clearly stated that Hanover & Elm Grove ward would be excluded from the Glyphosate treatment and that if this changed a public consultation would be run before anything happened.
The meeting was also attended by Caroline Lucas and the Pesticide Action Network. This is a great step forward and a victory for our community, but if Hanover residents are going to be allowed to opt out, this should be the same for the whole city.
The council needs to publish the detail on what it is going to do – not drip feed policy changes at random events. Tbh it looks like cllr Rowkins is tailoring his message to his audience, which is a bad way to to run the city.
Well it was Brighton-based Pesticide Action Network UK that spread the scaremongering misinformation about the dangers of Glyphosate, and former Green Party councillor Tom Druii who got them to convince councillors to support a city council pesticide ban.
They only banned the one herbicide and it only applied to council use on council managed land.
PAN UK gave been excellent at cherry-picking articles that support their activism, and suppressing information that shows Glyphosate (as with all chemicals), when used as instructed is perfectly safe, highly effective, and economical for keeping pavements and gutters free of weeds.
As we know, the EU has just extended the license for Glyphosate for another 10 years. It is also perfectly legal to buy and use in the UK, the EU, and the USA
I assume Tim and Caroline, like Tom, know nothing factual about the issues and we’re happy to regurgitate PAN UK propaganda, and are just happy to jump on a populist bandwagon as we approach the General Election this year.
Let’s hope the residents of the “muesli triangle” start removing weeds themselves as with “spot application” by the council, if there are no weeds, nothing will be sprayed.
Once again the Greens are doing exactly what they should be doing and holding the Labour council accountable for lying. You might not like Green policies and that’s fine but if the opposition on the council don’t highlight the lies and hypocrisy of a Labour council, we are left with nothing. The Tories are silent while Labour tear up their own manifesto, install frauds in Kemptown and introduce a cabinet system, which was not in their manifesto. I am thankful that we at least have an opposition that will hold them to account and we all should be, regardless of we like Green policies or not.
So true
Once again the ‘Greens’ haven’t got a clue, they have very short memories where liars are concerned, they should look in the mirror.
Of course all the damage is caused by vehicles parking on pavements, explain how vehicles can park in the very twitten in the photo above, what did the driver do, park it on its side.
Some people are so gullible.
Tree roots are the main cause of damage to footways in Brighton, followed closely by builders and deliveries associated with building works. If you have had a skip delivered, bulk bag deliveries lorries driving on footway to get the delivery closer its your fault, own up and take responsibility!!!!!! Don’t believe me ? Go to 40 Dyke Road Ave.
Do you have a more reliable means of justifying/corroborating your assertion other than an instruction to
‘go to 40 Dyke Road’?
The Conservative Group are certainly not silent!
Only recently – we have got Labour to u-turn completely on the closure of toilets in the City & a host of other proposals & measures recommended at the last full council meeting. Feel free to follow me on my FB group. Postings every day
M
The ‘Green’ party I’m afraid have lost what little if any creditability they may have had. The stuff that comes out their mouths would even embarrass an innocent five year old. The tantrums and verbal abuse displayed at an election defeat shows the mentality of the ‘Greens’. Others laughing at motorist stuck in a queue instigated by the party who wanted to reduce pollution, failure to support a park and ride because believe it or not, they were scared in case local people actually used it, failure to take responsibility for their errors, we didn’t know, it was our contractors, it was Brexit, covid and the list of excuses endless, then there’s the poor accounting where expenses were concerned. Just the tip of the iceberg of poor mis-management.
The party spokesperson must have very low intelligence to even suggest that vehicles parked on pavements caused the mass problems now being experienced through their lack of duty and care. I have no doubt at all, that some damage would have been caused to some pavements by vehicle movements.
You are incorrect when you claim the conservatives are silent, they have certainly challenged ‘Labour’ on the toilet issue, where were the ‘Greens’ on that ?
Sorry, following their recent behaviour and running the city I just consider them to be the village idiots. I have more faith in the raving looney party.
So what is the Green solution just let them carry on destroying the pavements? Even if we accept some of their argument and say weeds only account for a fraction of the damage, (say 10%), that is still £6 million worth of problem that can be solved for a fraction of that by using glysophate.
Idiotic response.
These people are morons.
Parking on pavements is not illegal (outside London), but the RAC advises drivers “should not do so” because of the damage it causes to pavements and the inconvenience it causes to pedestrians. Common in every town I know, it plagues some parts of Brighton & Hove. We should not do it.
Glyphosate has been shown in various medical studies to constitute major environmental and health problems when used intensively and in large-scale. Specifically, recent medical tests show “it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates” (International Journal of Molecular Science, May 2022). We should not use it.
The council is only planning to spot spray weeds on pavements and gutters and it will not be “used intensively and in large-scale”.
As such your post is merely scaremongering misinformation – are you by any chance part of PAN UK who regularly uses such tactics?
Are the RAC scaremongering?
Is highlighting peer-reviewed scientific research scaremongering?
(PS I have never heard of PAN UK)
The various studies that you quote have led to the chemical being banned then? If so, why do the USA, EU and UK (and others) all continue to approve its use?
Yes, we should search for better alternatives (as we should do with everything). However, it is madness to stop using something without a viable alternative. That’s what our council staff and councillors decided to do.
And your effective alternative solution is what, martin J??
Victim-blaming by a party refusing to accept any responsiblity for what is a statutory duty.
I have to say, Barry, that there is no pavement parking in my street either, so , although it may have a bearing in some areas, it has none here. However, there are a lot of eco-zealots in this street. Not that any of them ever complained when the stuff was used previously but if they’re offered some sort of consultation and opt-out by Rowkins, then I expect they will take it.
To repeat, if people don’t want this stuff to be used, then what is their alternative and effective solution? It’s all been tried and hasn’t worked.
Green Party response to every problem was to blame… blame, blame, blame… often the citizens of the city. The Green party has been thoroughly discredited and the ballot box solved the problem at the last council election. Good riddance. Now let us give the Labour council our support as they work to sort out the mess left by the Greens. BTW anyone seen Phelim lately? His twitter page still says “Leader Brighton & Hove City Council Proud to represent Brunswick & Adelaide residents.”…. RUDE.
Anyone who has escaped pavement parking are very lucky. In my experience nearly every street is afflicted by it.
It is illegal to drive on the pavement, sadly because it is a police matter, it is never enforced.
Parking on the pavement, is, however, a different matter, and that’s where the problem lies. I’d like to pursue a city-wide policy eventually to make it enforceable for all areas of the city, without having to rely on setting up specific enforcement areas, notice periods, and intensive enforcement until new behaviours are established.
Gareth, incorrect on both counts. It’s very few streets where vehicles are parked on the pavement.
It’s not illegal to drive on a pavement. Where access is required to properties and businesses vehicles will need to cross the pavement, rubbish collections on the lower prom and deliveries for example, then of course there’s the mechanical sweeper and other vehicles that will need to drive on the pavement for valid reasons.
Pavement parking takes place on almost all streets. For some it is more or less permanent, for others it is the regular churn of delivery vans, builders vans and visitors not wanting to find a proper space.
It is illegal to drive on the pavement unless there is a crossover point for access, but unless there is a special order in place (like Elm Grove) this is enforceable only by the police who basically don’t.
The damage caused by pavement parking is ongoing, substantial and obvious for all to see. A far greater issue than street plants.
The damage caused to Brighton by the Greens is immeasurable.
They have caused more congestion and pollution. They have discouraged commerce and tourism. And they almost bankrupted the city.
All in the name of Green dogma.
No wonder they got such a severe kicking in the local elections
Conan the fruitarian
I know the city streets quite well and I can state that you are wrong that almost every street has pavement parking.
Driving on the pavement isn’t illegal under certain conditions, and you’ve covered some reasons. Generally drivers don’t drive on the pavements unless ‘for access’ so it’s unlikely any offence is being committed so no action needs to be taken.
Yes of course there is evidence of pavement damage by vehicles, usually the verge and kerbs are the victims, but that does not explain the substantial damage in places where vehicles can not get access to.
If you think, vehicles are the cause of all pavement damage rather than poor maintenance then you really are in serious trouble.
We have both parking on pavement on one side of our road – and no parking ability on the other side of our road.
Yes there is damage from mostly lorries parking on the pavement in few places. But the whole stretch with no parking ability on the pavement – is very damaged due to the weeds pushing their way through. So our area is a good “A/B” test for the Greens statement – proving the Greens 90+% wrong.
So it is not a “only” one issues. It is multiple issues. But the lack of maintenance is causing the longest paths of destruction in our area – and weeds are the primary culprit.
Another space where weeds have completely killed the pavement is from Marina Gate towards Rottingdean on the North side of the road. The whole stretch is destroyed by lack of maintenance and weed control. There is NO parking options there at all.
Footpath is less than 1′ wide in places. So not handicap friendly – nor “able bodied” friendly at all. The asphalt is in a terrible state. It is accidents waiting to happen – just from lack of weed control and maintenance.
Its seems odd that ‘bad parking’ didn’t cause damage before, but apparently only during the weedkiller ban.
So how does that work, then?
I find it quite insulting that The Greens continue to assume the general public are total fools and just blatantly lie about everything. You lied then, and you’re still lying now. I still don’t understand why there are so far no consequences for their deceit.
Please Greens, do the decent thing and disappear forever. You are vile.
The bad parking in the main photo is a disgrace. How are these poor people going to get through that twitten with all those badly parked cars?