Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
24 Herbicide Reduction Plan PDF 1 MB
Minutes:
Matter for
Decision
The
Council’s declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency (18th July 2019) included a commitment
to reducing and removing the need to use herbicides on highway verges, roads,
and pavements, and to find viable and effective alternatives. This was
reflected in the development and application of the Herbicide Reduction Plan
(HRP).
The
Council’s passing of a Herbicide Motion (ref. 21/32/CNLc (22nd July 2021)), included a commitment to undertake
a range of tasks and actions to reduce the reliance on herbicides, as a means
of managing unwanted vegetation on public property asset within the city.
On the 27th January 2022, the Executive
Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food & Community Wellbeing, after
scrutiny, approved a Herbicide Reduction Plan, which included Newnham and
Arbury as the two herbicide free wards, and the introduction of up to 12
herbicide free streets outside of these wards. A further decision on the 23rd March 2023 extended the trial areas to include West
Chesterton and Trumpington.
The
Officer’s report updated on the work completed on the HRP, including an
evaluation of the four herbicide free wards and the herbicide free street
scheme; and makes recommendations to discontinue the use of herbicides1 in the
city’s public realm.
The
report considered the recent decision by the County Council to review its
Highway Operational Standards for Weeds and where this presents an opportunity
for the City Council to champion its ambitions to be herbicide free, and for
the City Council to contribute during the consultation period for the
formulation of the new policy that would include non-use of herbicides and how
this would be practically and financially implemented.
The
Trial had allowed the City Council to consider a range of alternatives and the
use of specialist street cleansing mechanical equipment was deemed to be the
most effective and sustainable weed control method available which removes the
need to use herbicides on highway verges, roads, and pavements.
The HRP and its Trial were now recommended for closure, and
that a new methodology was approved wherein herbicide use was significantly
reduced and limited to scenarios where viable alternatives were exhausted or no
other alternative was available.
Decision of Executive Councillor for
Open Spaces and City Services
i.
Approved the closure of the
Herbicide Free Plan and its Trials.
ii.
Approved the new weed control
methodology, including the discontinuation of herbicide use in routine
operations, for the City Council as outlined in this report.
iii.
Approved the continuation and
further development of the ‘Happy Bee Street Scheme’.
iv.
Noted the decision of the County
Council on their use of herbicides and to assist them with developing a new
approach for the city.
v.
Supported the development of a
collaborative communication plan as detailed in
Section 5 of the Officer’s report.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Strategic Delivery Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
‘No Mow May’ led to areas looking untidy and
anti-social behaviour such as fly tipping. Residents asked for equipment to
tidy up streets (which some residents viewed as looking untidy due to a build-up of leaf mould and
plants) after the Herbicide Reduction Plan trial started.
ii.
There were path and highway issues associated with
the Herbicide Reduction Plan.
iii.
Cars parked on the highway prevented streets being
deep cleaned. Queried how to engage with residents and commuters who parked in
roads to request they move vehicles when deep cleans were timetabled to occur.
iv.
Referenced public question 6 from earlier in the
agenda: It was important to inform residents why the Herbicide Free Trial was
happening.
The Strategic Delivery Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
The Herbicide Reduction Plan did not cause problems
per se. When the carriageway were in poor repair then
leaf mould could grow through the cracks etc. Alternatives to herbicides such
as a heat gun were available, the latter was time/resource inefficient.
ii.
If the Officer’s report was approved, the weed
control equipment listed could be ordered.
iii.
When deep cleans were timetabled to occur in
streets Officers would appreciate if Ward Councillors could engage with
residents etc who parked in streets to request vehicles were moved. Areas with
high weed growth would be targeted instead of a general deep clean around the
city.
iv.
The City Council would work with partner organisations
to close roads when deep cleans were timetabled. The intention was for
multi-agency action at the same time eg County
Council repairing potholes whilst the City Council cleaned streets. If cars
blocked the road, it may be possible to come back another time or use
alternative tools.
v.
Herbicides were only used in exceptional
circumstances when weeds (eg Japanese Knotweed) did
not respond to other methods.
vi.
The City Council and Pesticide Free Cambridge were
working on a communication strategy to inform residents why the Herbicide
Reduction Plan was being trialled. A herbicide free
scheme should look clean and tidy. The scheme was not implemented correctly if
verges and the highway looked untidy.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.