Work to find alternative weedkiller to glyphosate-based products in East Sussex

For much of the past year, parts of Hastings and Lewes have been taking part in ‘opt-out’ pilot schemes, which saw resident volunteers take on responsibility for clearance themselves, instead of taking part in East Sussex County Council’s annual weed sprays.

It was one of three different pilot schemes, through which the county council has been testing possible alternatives to using glyphosate — a common, but controversial weedkiller.

On Monday (December 19), the results of these trials were reported to Cllr Claire Dowling, the authority’s lead member for transport and environment.

After discussion, Cllr Dowling agreed to continue the opt-out pilot schemes in hopes of finding out more about its long-term impacts. In doing so, she also urged local councillors to bring the pilot schemes to the attention residents who may be interested in taking part.

To be eligible, at least 60 per cent of a street’s residents must be in favour of opting-out of the council’s annual weed sprays and have volunteers in place to undertake some sort of weed maintenance. Volunteers will be provided with equipment, training and insurance by the council.

Cllr Dowling also approved the continuation of a ‘reactive model’ pilot scheme. This pilot scheme saw council work crews remove weeds by hand, instead of pre-emptively spraying. As part of this, the crews would only attend areas where weeds posed either a health and safety risk or could potentially damage infrastructure.

It was also only trialled in Hastings and Lewes, but only in cul-de-sacs and residential roads with low-speed limits. As a result of Cllr Dowling’s decision, these trials will also continue next year.

Cllr Dowling also heard about a trial into using foamstream technology — a glyphosate alternative, which sees workcrews kill weeds with a non-toxic hot foam.

According to meeting papers, the foam stream trial provided several benefits above using glyphosate. These included the fact it can be used in any weather, its relative safety and simplicity and its effectiveness at removing graffiti and moss, as well as weeds.

However, officers said the trial had also highlighted several drawbacks, chiefly cost, although this was disputed by the company behind the product.

Currently, the council’s once annual weed spray costs somewhere in the region of £55,000 each year.

Council officers had initially estimated that a fully effective Foamstream treatment (requiring three applications) would cost in excess of £919,000 to cover the same ground. However, this figure was described as ‘fundementaly flawed’ and ‘inaccurate’ by Weedingtech, the British company behind the product.

Weedingtech said a treatment, as equally effective as an annual weed spray, would cost far less than the figure quoted by officers. The company also took issue with several other drawbacks identified by officers and pointed to its successful use by other authorities.

As a result of the company’s intervention, officers acknowledged that their initial cost estimate was likely not accurate.

While no new estimates were provided, council officers stood by their conclusion that the technology is not presently a suitable alternative to control weeds on a large live highway network.

Acting on officer advice, Cllr Dowling agreed to discontinue the trial.