Issue - decisions

Public Questions

Members of the public asked several questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Raised the following points:

      i.          Welcomed the recommendations made in the Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP). Suggested some amendments at 2.1 a) 'The Executive Councillor is recommended to approve the Herbicide Reduction Plan Project as set out in Appendix A.'

     ii.          Reasons for suggesting amendments to g) and h) were:

1.    Dates and preparations for the 12 wards outside the herbicide free trial are not mentioned in the HRP.  The start date for herbicide spraying is not given, nor the need for website content updating or publicity for their treatments.  The date for Consultation and Communication preparations for the trial wards to be ready is 25th February with a start date of 1st March. See point 5 of the report.

2.    Resources need to be allocated so residents can look up planned herbicide treatment dates by ward on the council’s website and see in situ signage so they can keep pets, children and themselves away from treated areas. This is for public health reasons, to reduce their exposure to herbicides.           

3.    Herbicides are probably carcinogenic (WHO) and are neurotoxic to humans.

4.    After herbicide treatment plants do not die off for 5 to 10 days so are invisible for that time.

5.    Glyphosate, the most common herbicide, has a half-life of 3 days to 19 weeks depending on the weather so can stay toxic for a long time. Herbicides pollute the air, the ground and ground water. You cannot see, taste or smell it in water.

   iii.          Appendix A

g) 'Explore the most effective methods of communicating with residents...about any necessary herbicide applications, which may will include the following commitments; publishing the planned dates of herbicide treatments by road/ward for the whole city for the remainder of 2022 and thereafter on the council website, allowing residents to find out when a treatment is planned. After 2022 herbicide treatments will end.’

and

h) 'Consider the commitment Commit to displaying signage in situ on the relevant roads and pavements with dates of any herbicide treatments from for the remainder of 2022 onwards after which herbicide treatments will end.'

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing responded:

      i.          Sections G and H were part of a council motion so could not be amended unless details went back to a Full Council meeting. The above ideas could be noted for future reference to avoid delay.

     ii.          The project initiation document contained strategic data, not operational data such as dates. It set tasks to be completed by 25 February. Officers would work with the project board on the tasks.

   iii.          Officers would communicate with residents about pesticides to be used. They were looking at ways to do this in conjunction with the project board.

   iv.          Residents would be advised when work was to be undertaken and any issues to be aware of.

 

Supplementary question:

      i.          Requested pesticide work be listed on the council website, so residents could see action taken at a road or ward level.

     ii.          Queried if herbicide work would end in 2022.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.          Pesticide work could be listed on the council website.

     ii.          Results from the end of the trial could not be predicted in advance. It was hoped pesticide use would end after 2022.

 

2.    Pesticide-Free Cambridge raised the following points:

      i.          Reiterated their firm commitment to working with the City Council to make Cambridge pesticide-free, starting with a complete end to herbicide use on land owned or managed by the City Council. Remained committed to working with communities, groups and residents to make this happen as quickly and as effectively as possible. Welcomed the Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP) and the Herbicide-Free Streets proposal. Was disappointed to note that they had no response to questions to the ECSC meeting on 7th October 2021 or to their follow up email to councillors on 10 December 2021.

     ii.          Raised the following questions for the ECSC meeting on 27 January 2022:

1.    Although the pesticide free motion of 22 July stated that the council would work directly with Pesticide-Free Cambridge over the planned herbicide free trials, to date we have only had informal talks with the Biodiversity Team, and we have not been included in any formal discussion with the council. When will Pesticide-Free Cambridge be invited to join a working group to monitor the progress of the ward trials and herbicide-free streets, and to have input into related information campaigns and websites?

2.    When will the city council start to post notices of when herbicide spraying is due to take place across those wards and streets that are NOT being included in the HRP and to erect information signage in areas that are undergoing herbicide-free trials?

3.    Will the city council operatives wear full PPE, as is legally required, when spraying herbicides?

4.    Will steps be taken to include specific reference to the human health impacts of pesticide exposure in the HRP? We are concerned that the only health impacts mentioned in the current document are those connected with trip hazards posed by urban plants. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing responded:

      i.          (Q1) For this to succeed the City Council would need to work with other organisations as set out in the Stakeholder & Comms Plan. A project board would lead on the plan.

     ii.          (Q2) Ideas were being developed on how to communicate with residents. The Stakeholder & Comms Plan would set out details.

   iii.          (Q3) City council operatives would wear full PPE and undertake a risk assessment.

   iv.          (Q4) The EQiA set out potential negative impacts which would be reviewed. The positive impact of ending pesticide use was also set out.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council has considered, debated, and shares the concerns from residents about the use of herbicides in the city.

 

On the 18th July 2019, the Council unanimously voted in favour of declaring a Biodiversity Emergency. In response, the Council has stopped the use of herbicides in playgrounds, parks and commons. This declaration also included a commitment to reducing and removing the need to use herbicides on highway footpaths and verges, and to find viable and effective alternatives.

 

On 22nd July 2021, the Council passed a Herbicide (Free) Motion (ref. 21/32/CNlc), which sets out a range of tasks and actions to reduce the reliance on herbicides as a means of managing unwanted vegetation on public property assets within the city.

 

The Officer’s report and its accompanying proposed Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP) Project Initiation Document (as set out in Appendix A) responds to the Council declared Biodiversity Emergency and approved Herbicide Motion.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

      i.          Approved the Herbicide Reduction Plan Project Initiation Documentation as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Approved Newnham and Arbury as the two trial Wards to be completely herbicide free for 2022.

   iii.          Approved the introduction of up to 12 herbicide free streets in addition to and outside of the two trial herbicide free wards.

 

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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Noted that members of the public and committee had suggested putting information about pesticide usage on physical signs (to be displayed in areas when work undertaken) as well as on websites. Signage was a significant resource. It was only accurate on the day it was written whereas webpage details could be updated faster. Would investigate the suggestion of using stickers as an alternative to signs as they could be easier to produce. Also QR codes.

     ii.          Undertook to produce a stakeholder communication plan to manage expectations and set out what people could expect from the trial.

   iii.          The trial was modelled on herbicide reduction action undertaken in Lambeth. People could opt into the trial. A consensus from residents was needed to show if people in a street wished to participate or not.

   iv.          Noted the suggestion to include details in Cambridge Matters.

    v.          Newnham and Arbury were chosen for the trial as they had different streetscapes that could be contrasted to review how the trial worked.

   vi.          Hazards would be noted and reacted to during the trial.

 vii.          Noted councillors’ concerns about strimming and mowing around trees as this could cause damage.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Porrer proposed to add the following recommendations to those in the Officer’s report:

·       New recommendation d - publishing the planned dates online of herbicide treatments for the whole city for 2022, with information available by both ward and road.

·       New recommendation e - committing to mark streets treated with herbicides with simple signs such as stickers on lamp posts.

·       New recommendation f - committing to end herbicide treatments on streets and open spaces in the city in 2022, subject to a successful trial.

 

The Chair decided that the proposed new recommendations should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee rejected recommendation d by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee rejected recommendation e by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee rejected recommendation f by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the (unamended) substantive recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

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.