Chemical weed killing to be bought back on Cambridgeshire's roads

Chemical weed killing is due to start again across the county after Cambridgeshire County Council admitted it had ‘not got it right’ on its policy.

The authority stopped using chemical weed killers last year, instead planning to only physically remove weeds if they “presented a hazard or nuisance” to people.

The county council said at the time of the change that it would save the authority £120,000 a year, would reduce its carbon footprint, and would reduce the use of “potentially harmful chemicals”.

However, a review found many people were unhappy with the change and that the policy was not delivering the benefits hoped for.

A report published by the county council said the net saving of the change was around £101,000, lower than expected, with more money now needing to be spent in the coming year to clear weeds that have built up.

It added that the need for council officers to travel out more frequently to physically remove problem weeds meant there had also not been the reduction in carbon emissions hoped for.

The report also said a survey had shown that a majority of respondents were unhappy with the results of the change.

The county council is now planning to reintroduce chemical weed killing in built up village and town areas with 40mph speed limits or below, for a minimum of twice a year.

However, the authority has said communities that do not want weeds to be sprayed can come forward with an alternative plan to remove weeds themselves.

At a meeting this week (January 23) council officers apologised for the way the policy change was handled and admitted the county council did not engage effectively with other councils and people in the county.

Councillor Alex Beckett, chair of the highways and transport committee, said: “I don’t think we got this one right.

“It was good to be having a more targeted approach and to be doing what a lot of our communities want to do.

“I know some of our communities want less chemical weed removal, but that obviously did not quite work everywhere.

“I am really glad that we have now got to a point where those communities that really do want chemical removal can have it, and those communities that are more interested in taking it on themselves and doing it in a more kind of sustainable way are also able to do so.

“I think that is really welcome that we are listening to those communities and doing what they want to do.”

The leader of the county council, Councillor Lucy Nethsingha, admitted the change of policy had been “rushed”.

However, she said there were people who were “adamant” they did not want chemical spraying in their area.

Cllr Nethsingha said there were “very valid concerns” about the impact on biodiversity and said she supported the proposed compromise approach to weed management across the county.

Councillor Anne Hay thanked Cllr Beckett for being able to say they had got it wrong with the policy.

She said she supported the move back to spraying weeds, but raised concerns about areas that opt out of chemical weed killing.

She said: “I feel we need to make sure where particular towns or parishes say they do not want it, should have to show some evidence base that residents in that particular town or parish are wholly behind them on this.

“Also, we have already found that without doing it for one year there is built up damage on pathways and roads.

“My concern is if certain areas opt out, who is responsible for the costs going forward for damage that would not otherwise be caused.”

Officers explained that if an area did not want chemical weed killing, this did not mean there would be no weed removal.

They said it was expected that the county council would reach agreements with groups who would be prepared to clear weeds manually themselves.

Councillor Simon King said: “I really support this idea of flexibility, allowing individual communities to choose how they want to deal with this problem, I think that is absolutely right.”

The committee unanimously agreed to support the change in weed killing policy.