Neighbours were shocked to see a team of council contractors spraying weedkiller in their street months after they had formed a group to weed it themselves.
Residents in Warleigh Road, Brighton, have spent hours working their way along the street, clearing weeks from between paving stones and next to garden walls after signing up to Brighton and Hove City Council’s glyphosate opt-out scheme in March.
On Tuesday (20 May), workers in hi-vis clothing were seen applying drops of the herbicide on the small patches of weeds that have not been tackled so far.
Warleigh Road resident Caroline Wheeler pulled her 10-year-old dog away from the sprayed areas because she was worried about the effect.
She said: “I asked the workmen if they had pets and they looked blank. I don’t think they’d even though about people being upset.
“I said that it’s a very Green area and we don’t like things like weedkillers. Again, blank.
“Then I said how would they like to have a good old munch of salad with weedkiller sprayed on. And of course they looked aghast and said no.”
Neighbours in nearby Shaftsbury Road were equally upset to see the workers and shared concerns on community social media about spraying around a tree.
Several residents in the wider area have contacted Green councillor Raphael Hill, who represents Roundhill ward, to complain about the spraying.
Councillor Hill said: “What we are seeing is a completely avoidable act of ecocide which suggests to me that the Labour administration has not got a grip on ensuring that their glyphosate opt-out policy is being adhered to.
“In Shaftesbury Road, one of the trees at the Clyde Road Junction had glyphosate sprayed on the tree trunk.
“I have seen photos showing lots of glyphosate spray all over this tree trunk as well as the plants that are next to the tree trunk which are not in any way an obstruction on the street level.
“Warleigh Road requested to be opted out and have done weeding themselves which suggests that there has been a lack of oversight with the opt-out and spraying is being done in a careless way.
“It discourages residents from taking the time to do hand-weeding if they might get sprayed with glyphosate anyway.”
Councillor Hill contacted the council’s environmental services team and was told that there was a “list of volunteers” from Warleigh Road but no official opt-out.
Members of the community insist that the appropriate forms for an opt-out had been filled in hence the council having people’s names.
Labour councillor Tim Rowkins, the council’s cabinet member for net zero and environmental services, said: “It has been great to see so many people keen to volunteer to clear pavements in their local community and this has been something the council has been delighted to support.
“Unfortunately, in this instance we did not receive an application from residents in Shaftsbury Road and the one we did receive from residents on Warleigh Road was not until (Tuesday) 6 May, more than a month after the deadline.
“As a result, neither road was included in our opt-out scheme and were therefore scheduled for treatment.
“However, given volunteers appear to have been out in force in Warleigh Road, treatment would have been kept to a minimum as our contractor is instructed to only treat where weeds are present.
“Where roads have opted out and we are satisfied sufficient weeding has taken place, it is made clear to our contractors not to treat those roads.”
Councillors voted to ban the use of glyphosate spraying in 2019, with the policy achieving cross-party support.
However, rather than phasing out the weedkiller, council workers stopped spraying altogether which resulted in an overgrowth of weeds on pavements and roadsides across the city prompting a significant volume of complaints.
Last year, after five years, Brighton and Hove City Council reintroduced glyphosate – sold commercially as Roundup.
Manual weeding did take place across Brighton and Hove but the council was never able to recruit enough staff to tackle unwanted vegetation along hundreds of miles of roads and pavements.
The council said that it now applies glyphosate through an oil-based medium directly on to the plants rather than sprayed across the wider pavement from the back of quadbikes as happened previously.
If they didn’t opt out in time can’t complain the weed man didn’t know about it
Should be more oganised next time
It’s increasingly evident that this Labour council prioritises its own interests over the well-being of residents health and the environment. Green spaces are being lost to skyscrapers and toxic practices continue unchecked. Studies have shown glyphosate causes cancer in humans, yet it’s still sprayed in areas where children and pets play. This disregard for safety and sustainability suggests a troubling lack of accountability and care for the community they are meant to serve.
Labour were dishonest in opposition and are worse in power.
Your statement is misleading without context. I shared your opinion until I read into it more.
While there is some evidence linking high levels of glyphosate to cancer in occupational settings, most global health authorities do not consider standard public-use applications to pose a cancer risk. The European Food Safety Authority and European Chemicals Agency both concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans when used as directed, and the US Environmental Protection Agency stated that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at normal levels of exposure.
The cancer risk primarily concerns chronic exposure to high doses, typically in industrial agricultural settings. The occasional, limited-use application in urban environments like streets and parks results in exposure levels far below the thresholds found in most animal or epidemiological studies.
It’s also worth noting that the Labour-led Council hasn’t ignored this issue. Brighton & Hove has been gradually reducing glyphosate use for several years, including pilot schemes to eliminate it from certain parks and play areas, so I’m afraid the reality doesn’t match your assertion.
The 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer claim glyphosate is carcinogenic, some argue the opposite—though some of these have been influenced by Monsanto or the agricultural lobby. Numerous studies show it causes harm to small mammals, so it’s impossible to believe it poses no risk to humans or the environment.
Given Labour’s track record on protecting our environment and public health, I have no confidence in their approach.
We’re stuck with a confusing and time consuming opt-in/opt-out system that pits neighbours against each other. We need political courage. Labour should listen to the experts they pay millions to consult, take responsibility, and make a clear decision.
This Labour group shows no conviction—just a tendency to offload responsibility onto the public, which is why the situation is such a mess.
Labour prove again they love to point the finger and cannot govern.
I appreciate your reply, though I think it’s still important to separate this out a bit for nuance.
The IARC’s 2015 classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” is often cited, but this refers to hazard, not risk. The classification doesn’t mean glyphosate will cause cancer under normal public exposure, it means it can under certain conditions, typically occupational and high-exposure.
As mentioned already, major regulatory bodies like EFSA, ECHA, and the US EPA have reviewed broader datasets and found no evidence that standard, controlled use in public spaces poses a carcinogenic risk to humans.
Speaking of small mammals, that’s a different issue, and I think you are right, in that it’s valid to consider environmental impact more broadly. But again, context matters. Many everyday products are harmful to wildlife in large concentrations. The question is whether local glyphosate use at the levels that BHCC uses it justifies the accusation of recklessness. We can see alternative methods have been explored over the years.
I agree that opt-in/opt-out is awkward, but I suspect this comes from trying to balance different views and legal duties around weed control. Brighton isn’t alone in trying to navigate this, from what I’ve read. I’d prefer a cautious approach, inviting local participation, rather than a top-down one-size-fits-all decision.
It’s easy to criticise, but harder to design a fair, scalable system that reflects real-world costs, climate conditions, and mixed community views. If Labour had steamrolled a blanket policy, I imagine you’d be saying they ignored residents entirely?
Leaving it to individuals to “opt in or out” of causing harm is a joke — but Labour would rather dodge responsibility than lead. Labour are anti-democratic populist libertarianists at their worst. Just look at the awful pollution in the city. It’s Labour’s fault for supporting population increase and then doing nothing. Labour are the problem.
A “top-down” policy is what most people recognise as leadership. Labour shirk responsibility at every turn.
Their environmental record was bad in opposition and it’s even worse in power — driven by anti-democratic instincts and a complete lack of accountability.
Rob, I think we’ve now veered from a conversation about glyphosate and local policy into sweeping generalisations that don’t reflect reality.
You’re calling Labour “populist libertarians” one minute and “anti-democratic authoritarians” the next. That contradiction alone should give pause. You’ve blamed them for everything from street weed control to population growth to pollution. But hyperbole isn’t analysis.
Is this weedkiller policy imperfect? Absolutely. But it’s also an attempt to find a middle ground between legal obligations, environmental concerns, and resident choice. Most other councils using glyphosate don’t even offer that option. The pilot schemes to reduce glyphosate began under Labour and have expanded slowly as alternatives were tested. That’s not cowardice, it’s due diligence.
You accuse Labour of lacking leadership, but let’s be honest: if they imposed a blanket ban or a blanket application, you’d criticise that too. Sometimes, doing things the slow, consultative way is the responsible choice, especially when dealing with competing resident demands and limited council budgets.
What a load of cobblers. This is up there with the anti vax lot, coincidentally who have now caused a surge in measles.. unless you’re spraying your entire garden in this stuff it does absolutely nothing to the wildlife other than kill a few weeds. My garden has tons of bees, insects ect, because I plant wild flower. I have sprayed the pavement myself roundup because I got so sick or the green party experiment to wreck the city and guess what, bees and insects are still there.
When humans actually start having accidents and genuinely hurting themselves because a few clowns like the pavements to be weed ridden, that’s time to question their sanity surly.
But before they started using glyphosate the council were only weeding about 30% of the city’s streets, meaning that the majority were not being weeded at all. Why didn’t the council look at better use of resources and target problem streets, rather than its scattergun 30% approach which meant some streets that didn’t really need weeding were, and others that were problematic were not tackled.
There’s a lack of logic in everything the council does. We know from City Clean articles that the council uses paper based systems and what a car crash this has led to with missed collections.
Whether people agree or not with the science arguments about using glyphosate or not, the bigger underlying problem is the council’s handling of things. Even those lobbying Labour to stop using it back in 2019 said that it should be phased out with a plan, and the council ignored that. Then they bring it back because things (not surprisingly) have got out of control after they targeted their 30% of weed clearance in many of the wrong places. Then their solution was to reintroduce glyphosate and they are now using it in streets where residents say they don’t want it, and where it’s not needed because residents are manual weeding themselves.
It’s farcical – and the whole thing was avoidable if the Labour administration back in 2019 had of listened to the advice at that time and phased out glyphosate and had a better plan in place about areas to focus on as priority areas. The fact requests from residents are not reaching contractors in time shows that systems are still not working well at the council.
The opt out scheme is incoherent, has been rushed through, and residents have been given no support in organising and participating. It is a horrible situation – either you destroy your street level biodiversity, your pollinators, and take responsibility for the impact on bird and insect life, or the council will blast you with carcinogenic toxins.
A better solution would be an ‘opt in’ scheme for streets which such profound problems that they welcome applications of poison, with everyone else being left to enjoy and support urban nature.
I think an opt-in model is a great idea. In our area, we’ve chosen to manage weeds manually, though I have occasionally used spray in specific spots like steps, where there is a greater safety aspect. I hope this reflects a balanced approach, recognising that while chemical use should be minimised, there are contexts where it can be practical. After all, many common substances, including medicines, are technically poisons. Let’s not forget that warfarin, a widely used anticoagulant, is also used as rat poison.
So even though your street has opted out of being sprayed by the council, you’ve personally decided to spray a bit of weedkiller yourself? Do your neighbours know?!
Tom, it’s important to read things correctly. We’ve chosen to manage weeds manually, not opt-out.
Thank you, finally a rational reply, between the insinuations of being an anti-vax and extremist crowd (no, really, we are not). Nobody is advocating radical solutions or fearing a massive cancer outbreak because of a bit of weed-killer on the pavement, we’re just trying to find a balanced way to deal with a problem as citizens and neighbours, and grateful to the council to tackle it in a more respectful way- which they are already doing.
Yes, in my back yard, I have Foxgloves aka Digitalis. This has a barrier, because my old dog, usually likes to go where he shouldn’t.
Tim Rowkins is clearly out of depth, and cannot be trusted to deal with these important environmental issues, especially now he’s taken on the additional responsibility of being deputy leader of the council.
Why does there have to be a ‘deadline’ by which streets must opt out?
Why were Warleigh Rd residents not informed that their application had missed this ‘deadline’, leaving them to incorrectly believe their application had been successful?
Why hasn’t Rowkins responded to the clear evidence that weedkiller was being applied inappropriately on Shaftsbury Rd, sprayed onto and around a tree?
Having a deadline makes perfect sense. You can’t wait around forever for an opt-out that may or may not come. They should have been communicated to, though, about missing the deadline, or at least communicated that the area would be opted out at the next round.
You are talking about a council whose phone lines have been down for weeks Benjamin. I know you like to defend them when you can, but we all know it can be impossible trying to contact the council over basic requests. In this case – even if the streets did miss the ‘deadline’ – it sounds like they contacted the council with their request weeks ago. That should be ample time for the information to get into the system. Labour promised residents they’d listen – they are doing the exact opposite on pretty much everything.
I totally understand how frustrating it is trying to get through to the council – no argument there. It’s not so much defending, but pointing out the flaws in logic people present at times, respectfully.
But in this case, the article clearly states the Warleigh Road opt-out was received in May, a month after the deadline. So while communication could always be better, it’s not accurate to say the council ignored a valid request. It was simply late.
Having said that, there’s no excuse for the next round.
I have to giggle at articles like this, because the posturing is so Brighton – and quite ridiculous.
We have so many couch potatoes and other nature experts who have watched one David Attenborough series, and now call themselves environmentalists or ‘green’.
And so when someone mentions weed killer they start shouting on social media – but then try and find one who actually rolls up their sleeves for a bit of communal street weeding.
In this case they didn’t weed their own space, and they missed the deadline to stop the council from acting. And now they are complaining about the council doing its job.
Whatever party or policy you support, please be aware that being green doesn’t mean that nature is allowed to take over – and it still means you tidy up and have work to do. Gardening is never a laissez-faire option.
If you opt out you should them maintain the area, you can’t be doing a good job if weeds are still there. At our complex in Hove we don’t use weedkiller but we make sure the area is clear of weeds.
That’s…actually a good point…
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (category 2A). Other substances/activities in category 2A include red meat, drinking liquids above 65 °C, night shift work).
However, other organizations like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov) also states that ECHA does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen. See Benbrook C, published in Environmental Sciences Europe volume 31, Article number: 2 (2019).
Given the content of the story, on balance might this be a better headline?
“Residents who missed the opt-out deadline upset that weedkiller crew then treats street”