A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Herbicide-Free
Weed Management
Council
notes:
Council
believes:
Council
therefore calls on the Leader and Executive Councillor to:
Minutes:
Councillor Dryden
left the meeting before this item was considered and did not return.
Councillor Payne
proposed and Councillor Young seconded the following motion.
Council notes:
Council
believes:
Council therefore
calls on the Leader and Executive Councillor to:
Councillor Smart
proposed and Councillor Moore seconded the following amendment (deleted text
struck through and additional text underlined):
Council
notes:
·
That in 2019 the Council
unanimously supported calling a Biodiversity Emergency, which has since then
been put into practice with the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy.
·
That in 2021 the Council
unanimously supported a herbicide-free trial in two wards which has since then progressed to the adoption of the
council’s city-wide Herbicide-Free Weed Strategy in 2025.
•
That Cambridge Liberal
Democrats called for the Council to adopt and trial herbicide-free weed
management, both through the declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency in 2019
and through a motion proposing trials in two wards in 2021.
•
That the Liberal Democrat motion
received unanimous Council support and was welcomed by local environmental organisations and community groups.
•
That Cambridge City Council
has been successful in stopping the use of herbicides.
•
Certain widely used formulas,
such as glyphosate, have been linked by various health organisations
and studies to chronic issues, including potential carcinogenic risks and
hormone disruption. The World Health Organisation's
International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably
carcinogenic to humans”.
•
Herbicides are therefore
potentially dangerous to all plant life including edible foodstuffs, as well as
animals, including pets.
•
It is the policy of this
Council to cultivate a healthy, nature-positive urban environment that supports
local wildlife and ecosystems.
•
That there has been continuing
cross-party support for developing a herbicide-free
approach in Cambridge.
•
Recognises
the important contribution made by Pesticide Free Cambridge, On
the Verge and others in developing and supporting Cambridge’s
herbicide-free ambition.
•
That the trials demonstrated
the environmental benefits of reducing herbicide use, provided evidence supporting
the environmental case for reducing routine herbicide use
but also identified significant operational challenges associated with
replacing chemical treatment with mechanical and manual methods.
•
That mechanical and manual
weed removal is more labour-intensive, is affected by
weather, seasonal growth, parked vehicles and accumulated detritus, and
requires repeat visits because it does not prevent regrowth.
•
That, following the trials
and investment the Council has invested in
specialist equipment, the Council moved in order
to extend herbicide-free weed management across the city.
•
That the Council’s approved
2025 Herbicide-Free Weed Management Work Programme identified an initial backlog of weed growth
requiring intensive treatment before moving to a programme
of regular scheduled maintenance
•
That,
since then, implementation has been challenging
slow, reflecting the difficult and
time-consuming nature of herbicide-free weed removal and the need to tackle
years of accumulated detritus alongside the visible growth. Consequently, a
substantial number of some areas that
are between are still awaiting treatments, and
can cause residents to be are
understandably concerned about the condition and accessibility of
streets and public spaces.
·
That there is currently no
sufficiently clear and publicly accessible picture of the outstanding backlog,
broken down by ward and priority, or of actual
delivery against the treatment programme provided in
2025.
•
That responsibility for weed
management is divided between Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County
Council and other landowners, requiring strong stronger
coordination and clear clearer information for residents.
Council
believes:
•
That the Council-led ambition
to end the routine use of herbicides remains the
right approach for Cambridge and should not be abandoned because its
implementation has proved more difficult than anticipated. Should be maintained, while recognising that
its success depends on a properly resourced, sustainable and effective weed
management service.
•
That herbicide-free weed
management supports the Council’s
commitments to biodiversity, environmental protection and more sustainable
management of public spaces.
•
That environmental ambition
must be matched by effective implementation, sufficient resources, suitable
equipment and an honest assessment of what is required to deliver the service
successfully.
•
That Cambridge residents are
entitled to streets and public spaces that are safe, accessible, properly
maintained and attractive.
•
That priority must be given to
weed growth that obstructs footways, affects accessibility, restricts drainage,
creates a safety concern or risks damage to highways and other infrastructure,
though not an exclusive list
•
That some vegetation can be
tolerated where it does not affect safety, accessibility, drainage,
infrastructure or the reasonable enjoyment of public space, though not an
exclusive list
•
That residents should be given
clear information about the standards they can expect from an herbicide-free
service, including the greater likelihood of seasonal growth and regrowth
between treatments.
•
That the present challenges
will not cause difficulties require decisive corrective action and
additional support for the service, rather than any retreat from the
Council’s herbicide-free commitment a clear
recovery plan for outstanding work, followed by a sustainable recurring
maintenance programme, rather than a retreat from the
Council’s commitment to ending the routine use of herbicides.
Council
therefore calls on the Leader and Executive Councillor
to:
•
Reaffirm the Council’s
commitment to cross-party support for the Liberal Democrat-led
ambition of ending the routine use of herbicides on land managed by the
City Council.
Commission an urgent Officer review of the current weed-management
programme, identifying: Require Officers to report on delivery
against the Council’s approved 2025 Herbicide-Free Weed Management Work Programme, identifying:
o the work originally planned and the work actually delivered to date;
o the current outstanding backlog of outstanding
work, broken down by ward and priority;
o the reasons for any material delays or variance from the
approved programme;
o the staffing, equipment and financial capacity currently
available and the capacity required;
o the effectiveness and whole-life cost of the different
mechanical and manual methods;
o the frequency of repeat treatment required to maintain
acceptable standards;
o seasonal and weather-related constraints;
o the effect of parked vehicles and other access
restrictions; and
o
opportunities for better
coordination with the County Council, contractors, communities and other
landowners.
o
Any
additional costs to the City Council of cutting the County Council’s verges on
their behalf.
•
the reasons for departure from
the original programme;
•
the extent of the outstanding
work;
•
the staffing, equipment and
financial capacity required;
•
the effectiveness and
whole-life cost of the different mechanical and manual methods;
•
the frequency of repeat
treatment needed;
•
seasonal and weather-related
constraints;
•
the effect of parked vehicles
and other access restrictions; and
•
opportunities for better
coordination with the County Council, contractors, communities and other
landowners.
•
Bring forward a costed, non-recurring recovery programme
to blitz outstanding priority areas
and establish a manageable baseline for future maintenance.
•
Ensure that any short-term
intervention is supported by a sustainable annual maintenance programme, so that areas cleared through the recovery work
receive appropriate repeat treatment.
•
Bring forward an options
appraisal for a non-recurring recovery programme
to blitz outstanding priority areas and
establish a manageable baseline for future maintenance
•
Bring forward an options
appraisal for and a sustainable annual maintenance programme,
so that areas cleared through the recovery work receive appropriate repeat
treatment, including appropriate treatment frequencies for different categories
of location.
•
Develop a risk-based approach that
prioritises safety, accessibility, drainage,
transport routes and the protection of public infrastructure.
•
Adopt a transparent risk-based prioritisation framework, giving priority to safety,
accessibility, drainage, transport routes and the protection of public
infrastructure, with clear service standards and target response times.
•
Continue to test and evaluate
new equipment and working methods, drawing on
operational evidence from Cambridge and good practice elsewhere.
•
Present
Bring forward any necessary suggested
budget bid for 2027-28, clearly distinguishing between the
one-off cost of recovering the service and the recurrent resources required to
maintain it, so that Councillors
can make an informed decision weighing up the costs of any necessary bid with
any additional savings that will need to be made elsewhere
•
Publish a clear statement for
residents setting out responsibilities, priorities, expected service
standards, seasonal constraints and how urgent concerns should be reported. the
division of responsibilities between te City Council,
County Council and other landowners; service priorities and standards; seasonal
constraints; and how urgent concerns should be reported and escalated.
•
Introduce transparent
performance reporting covering areas completed, outstanding initial treatments,
repeat visits, complaints, service requests, costs and operational learning.
•
Report
the findings of the review, together with costed options
and a revised delivery programme, to the relevant
scrutiny committee within an agreed timescale.
The
amendment was carried by 21 votes in favour to 13 against, with 4 abstentions.
Councillor Davison proposed and Councillor Clough seconded the following amendment (deleted text struck
through and additional text underlined):
•That Cambridge Liberal Democrats called
for to adopt and trial herbicide-free weed management, both through the
declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency in 2019 and through a motion proposing
trials in two wards in 2021 the Council
declared a Biodiversity Emergency in 2019 and subsequently supported the
introduction and trial of herbicide-free weed management in Cambridge.
• That the Liberal
Democrat motion received unanimous Council support and was welcomed by local
environmental organisations and community groups.
• The important contribution made by Pesticide
Free Cambridge and others in developing and supporting Cambridge’s herbicide
free ambition.
• That the trials demonstrated
the environmental benefits of reducing herbicide use, provided
evidence supporting the environmental case for reducing routine herbicide use
but also identified significant operational challenges associated with
replacing chemical treatment with mechanical and manual methods.
• That mechanical and manual weed removal is
more labour intensive, is affected by weather, seasonal growth, parked vehicles
and accumulated detritus, and requires repeat visits because it does not
prevent regrowth.
• That, following
the trials and investment in specialist equipment, the Council moved to extend
herbicide-free weed management across the city.
• That the
Council’s approved 2025 Herbicide-Free Weed Management Work Programme
identified an initial backlog of weed growth requiring intensive treatment
before moving to a programme of regular scheduled maintenance
• That, since then, implementation has been slow,
reflecting the difficult and time-consuming nature of herbicide-free weed
removal and the need to tackle years of accumulated detritus alongside the
visible growth. Consequently, a substantial number of areas are still
awaiting treatment, and residents are understandably concerned about the
condition of streets and public spaces. there remains outstanding work in
some areas, and concerns have been raised about the condition and accessibility
of streets and public spaces.
• That
there is currently no sufficiently clear and publicly accessible picture of the
outstanding backlog, broken down by ward and priority, or of actual delivery
against the treatment programme approved in 2025.
• That
responsibility for weed management is divided between Cambridge City Council,
Cambridgeshire County Council and other landowners, requiring stronger
coordination and clearer information for residents.
• That the proposed
Civic Quarter capital redevelopment project relies on taking on over £60
million in external borrowing at last estimate, alongside drawing on the
Council’s general reserves.
• That while there
has been adjustment in plans for the Civic Quarter in light of both recent
consultation and higher-than-anticipated borrowing costs, concerns remain among
traders, residents, and stakeholder groups about disruption caused by the
project, as well as project costs and the financial risks associated with a major
capital scheme.
Council believes:
• That the Council-led ambition to end the
routine use of herbicides remains the right approach for Cambridge and
should not be abandoned because its implementation has proved more difficult
than anticipated.should be maintained,
while recognising that its success depends on a properly resourced, sustainable
and effective weed management service.
• That herbicide-free weed management supports
the Council’s commitments to biodiversity, environmental protection and more
sustainable management of public spaces.
• That
environmental ambition must be matched by effective implementation, sufficient
resources, suitable equipment and an honest assessment of what is required to
deliver the service successfully.
• That Cambridge
residents are entitled to streets and public spaces that are safe, accessible,
properly maintained and attractive.
• That priority must be given to addressing weed
growth that obstructs footways, affects accessibility, restricts drainage,
creates a safety concern or risks damage to highways and other infrastructure.
• That some
vegetation can be tolerated where it does not affect safety, accessibility,
drainage, infrastructure or the reasonable enjoyment of public space.
• That residents
should be given clear information about the standards they can expect from an
herbicide-free service, including the greater likelihood of seasonal growth and
regrowth between treatments.
• That the present
difficulties require decisive corrective action and additional
support for the service, rather than any retreat from the Council’s
herbicide-free commitment. a clear
recovery plan for outstanding work, followed by a sustainable recurring
maintenance programme, rather than a retreat from the Council’s commitment to
ending the routine use of herbicides.
• That a
commitment of over £60 million in external borrowing, as well as significant draw
on the Council’s general reserves, for a major redevelopment project while
basic street maintenance is failing due to underfunding reflects flawed
financial and civic priorities.
Council therefore calls on the Leader and Executive Councillor to:
• Reaffirm the
Council’s commitment to the Liberal Democrat-led ambition of ending the
routine use of herbicides on land managed by the City Council.
• Commission an
urgent officer review of the current weed management programme, identifying:
Require Officers to report on delivery against the Council’s approved 2025
Herbicide-Free Weed Management Work Programme, identifying:
o the work originally planned and the work actually delivered to date;
o the current outstanding backlog of
outstanding work, broken down by ward and priority;
o the reasons for any material delays or
variance from the approved programme;
o the staffing, equipment and financial
capacity currently available and the capacity required;
o the effectiveness and whole-life cost of the
different mechanical and manual methods;
o the frequency of repeat treatment
required to maintain acceptable standards;
o seasonal and weather-related constraints;
o the effect of parked vehicles and other
access restrictions; and
o
opportunities
for better coordination with the County Council, contractors, communities and
other landowners.
§ the
reasons for departure from the original programme;
§ the
extent of the outstanding work;
§ the
staffing, equipment and financial capacity required;
§ the
effectiveness and whole-life cost of the different mechanical and manual
methods;
§ the
frequency of repeat treatment needed; o seasonal and
weather-related constraints;
§ the
effect of parked vehicles and other access restrictions; and
§ opportunities
for better coordination with the County Council, contractors, communities and
other landowners.
• Bring forward a
costed, non-recurring recovery programme to blitz outstanding priority areas
and establish a manageable baseline for future maintenance. time-limited recovery programme to clear the outstanding
priority backlog and establish a measurable baseline for future maintenance.
• Ensure that
any short-term intervention is supported by a sustainable annual maintenance
programme, so that areas cleared through the recovery work receive appropriate
repeat treatment. Establish a sustainable recurring maintenance programme,
including appropriate treatment frequencies for different categories of location,
so that areas cleared through the recovery programme do not return to an
unsustainable backlog.
• Develop a risk-based approach that
prioritises safety, accessibility, drainage, transport routes and the
protection of public infrastructure. Adopt a transparent risk-based
prioritisation framework, giving priority to safety, accessibility, drainage,
transport routes and the protection of public infrastructure, with clear
service standards and target response times.
• Continue to test
and evaluate new equipment and working methods, drawing on operational evidence
from Cambridge and good practice elsewhere.
• Bring
forward any necessary budget bid for 2027-28, clearly distinguishing between
the one-off cost of recovering the service and the recurrent resources
required to maintain it. clearing the existing backlog and the recurrent staffing,
equipment and other resources required to maintain the service thereafter, and
setting out the consequences of different funding levels.
• Instruct officers
to conduct an immediate financial review of the planned Civic Quarter project
aimed at scaling back borrowing and capital allocations, with such resources as
needed for the above budget bid to be reallocated to frontline street cleansing,
gully clearing, and manual weed management teams.
• Publish a clear
statement for residents setting out responsibilities, priorities, expected
service standards, seasonal constraints and how urgent concerns should be
reported. the division of responsibilities between the City Council, County
Council and other landowners; service priorities and standards; seasonal
constraints; and how urgent concerns should be reported and escalated.
• Introduce
transparent and regular performance reporting covering areas
completed, outstanding initial treatments, repeat visits, complaints, service
requests, costs and operational learning the outstanding backlog by ward, initial treatments
completed, repeat visits, compliance with service standards, complaints and
service requests, expenditure, cost per treatment, and operational learning.
• Report the
findings of the review, together with costed options and a revised delivery
programme, to the relevant scrutiny committee within an agreed timescale current backlog, costed recovery
options, proposed recurring maintenance programme and measurable service
standards to the relevant scrutiny committee within an agreed timescale, with
subsequent regular reporting on delivery against those commitments.
The amendment was lost by 27 votes against to 11 votes in favour.
Resolved (36 in favour to 2 against, with 0 abstentions) that:
Council notes:
· That in 2019 the
Council unanimously supported calling a Biodiversity Emergency, which has since
then been put into practice with the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy.
· That in 2021 the
Council unanimously supported a herbicide-free trial
in two wards which has since then progressed to the adoption of the council’s
city-wide Herbicide-Free Weed Strategy in 2025.
· That Cambridge
City Council has been successful in stopping the use of herbicides.
· Certain widely
used formulas, such as glyphosate, have been linked by various health
organisations and studies to chronic issues, including potential carcinogenic
risks and hormone disruption. The World Health Organisation's International
Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably
carcinogenic to humans”.
· Herbicides are
therefore potentially dangerous to all plant life including edible foodstuffs,
as well as animals, including pets.
· It is the policy
of this Council to cultivate a healthy, nature-positive urban environment that
supports local wildlife and ecosystems.
· That there has
been continuing cross-party support for developing a
herbicide-free approach in Cambridge.
· Recognises the
important contribution made by Pesticide Free Cambridge, On the Verge and
others in developing and supporting Cambridge’s herbicide-free ambition.
· That the trials
provided evidence supporting the environmental case for reducing routine
herbicide use but also identified significant operational challenges associated
with replacing chemical treatment with mechanical and manual methods.
· That mechanical
and manual weed removal is more labour-intensive, is affected by weather,
seasonal growth, parked vehicles and accumulated detritus, and requires repeat
visits because it does not prevent regrowth.
· That, the Council has
invested in specialist equipment in order to extend
herbicide-free weed management across the city.
· That the Council’s
approved 2025 Herbicide-Free Weed Management Work Programme identified an
initial backlog of weed growth requiring intensive treatment before moving to a
programme of regular scheduled maintenance
· That, since then,
implementation has been challenging, reflecting the difficult and
time-consuming nature of herbicide-free weed removal and the need to tackle
years of accumulated detritus alongside the visible growth. Consequently, some
areas that are between treatments, can cause residents to be understandably
concerned about the condition and accessibility of streets and public spaces.
· That there is
currently no sufficiently clear and publicly accessible picture of the
outstanding backlog, broken down by ward and priority, or of actual delivery
against the treatment programme provided in 2025.
· That responsibility
for weed management is divided between Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire
County Council and other landowners, requiring strong coordination and
clear information for residents.
Council believes:
· That the
Council-led ambition to end the routine use of herbicides should be maintained,
while recognising that its success depends on a properly resourced, sustainable
and effective weed management service.
· That
herbicide-free weed management supports the Council’s commitments to biodiversity,
environmental protection and more sustainable management of public spaces.
· That environmental
ambition must be matched by effective implementation, sufficient resources,
suitable equipment and an honest assessment of what is required to deliver the
service successfully.
· That Cambridge
residents are entitled to streets and public spaces that are safe, accessible,
properly maintained and attractive.
· That priority must
be given to weed growth that obstructs footways, affects accessibility,
restricts drainage, creates a safety concern or risks damage to highways and
other infrastructure, though not an exclusive list.
· That some
vegetation can be tolerated where it does not affect safety, accessibility,
drainage, infrastructure or the reasonable enjoyment of public space, though
not an exclusive list.
· That residents
should be given clear information about the standards they can expect from an
herbicide-free service, including the greater likelihood of seasonal growth and
regrowth between treatments.
· That the present
challenges will not cause any retreat from the Council’s herbicide-free commitment’
· That the present
challenges require a clear recovery plan for outstanding work, followed by a
sustainable recurring maintenance programme, rather than a retreat from the
Council’s commitment to ending the routine use of herbicides.
Council therefore calls on the Leader and Executive Councillor to:
· Reaffirm the Council’s
commitment to cross-party support for ending the routine use of herbicides on
land managed by the City Council.
· Require Officers
to report on delivery against the Council’s approved 2025 Herbicide-Free Weed
Management Work Programme, identifying:
o
the work originally planned and the work actually delivered to date;
o
the current backlog of outstanding work, broken
down by ward and priority;
o
the reasons for any material delays or variance
from the approved programme;
o
the staffing, equipment and financial capacity
currently available and the capacity required;
o
the effectiveness and whole-life cost of the
different mechanical and manual methods;
o
the frequency of repeat treatment required to
maintain acceptable standards;
o
seasonal and weather-related constraints;
o
the effect of parked vehicles and other access
restrictions;
o
opportunities for better coordination with the
County Council, contractors, communities and other landowners;
o
any additional costs to the City Council of cutting
the County Council’s verges on their behalf.
· Bring forward an
options appraisal for a non-recurring recovery programme
to blitz outstanding priority areas and establish a manageable
baseline for future maintenance.
· Bring forward an
options appraisal for a sustainable annual maintenance programme, so that areas
cleared through the recovery work receive appropriate repeat treatment, including
appropriate treatment frequencies for different categories of location.
· Develop a
risk-based approach that prioritises safety, accessibility, drainage, transport
routes and the protection of public infrastructure.
· Adopt a
transparent risk-based prioritisation framework, giving priority to safety,
accessibility, drainage, transport routes and the protection of public
infrastructure, with clear service standards and target response times.
· Continue to test and
evaluate new equipment and working methods, drawing on operational evidence
from Cambridge and good practice elsewhere.
· Present any
suggested budget bid for 2027-28, clearly distinguishing
between the one-off cost of recovering the service and the recurrent resources
required to maintain it, so that Councillors can make an informed
decision weighing up the costs of any necessary bid with any additional savings
that will need to be made elsewhere
· Publish a clear statement
for residents setting out the division of responsibilities between the City
Council, County Council and other landowners; service priorities and standards;
seasonal constraints; and how urgent concerns should be reported and escalated.
· Introduce
transparent performance reporting covering areas completed, outstanding initial
treatments, repeat visits, complaints, service requests, costs and operational
learning.
·
Report the findings of the review, together with costed
options and a revised delivery programme, to the relevant scrutiny committee
within an agreed timescale
