Meeting Details

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meeting of 20 March 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

Councillor Goacher attended the meeting and addressed the Panel in pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He had received a statement from Anna Bolton, a resident of his ward, which he read to the Panel, and which raised 4 enquiries:

1. The decision had been taken to phase out the use of Glyphosate in Colchester in 2020. What specifically had changed during this time which had led the Panel to conclude that it was now safe to bring back a highly toxic substance to our city streets, playgrounds and water ways? Effective as it might be as a herbicide in moderation, it’s widespread use directly effected wildlife, water systems, biodiversity and residents. The decision made in 2020 had been a sound one.
2. As part Colchester’s Strategic Plan, two of the key aims were to ‘respond to the climate emergency’ and ‘improve health, well-being and happiness’. How could the Council justify re-introducing the use, on masse, of a highly toxic substance to city streets and communities and still be in line with these aims?
3. Was there a breakdown of costs- line for line - where the public can review just how much more the glyphosate-free alternatives were apparently costing and so justifying going back to glyphosate use?
4. What contact and/or discussions had been carried out with other Councils who advocate a glyphosate-free approach (in the UK and Europe)? By educating and informing our next steps in this area, the council would really demonstrate its commitment to protecting both the environment and the people who live within it.
5.  

Anna Bolton believed that the use of glyphosate shouldn’t be a binary, ‘either or’ decision. To go back to glyphosate simply due to apparent cost implications would be verging on negligence. All other avenues needed to be explored and exhausted. The very health of the city, which was ‘Fit For The Future’ depended on it.

David Carter, Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer, attended the meeting and provided a response to the questions which had been asked. He confirmed that alternative weed control methods had not worked in every location, and a wide variety of methods had been tested in the city’s parks and open spaces, as well as Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) properties. A large number of these methods had been effective and were continuing, however, in areas where it was not possible to access the roots of weeds, they had proved ineffective. No decision had been reached with regard to how these problem areas would be maintained, and a report was before the Panel in its agenda this evening which asked for it to make such a decision. If the decision was taken to re-introduce the use of glyphosate in very limited circumstances where other methods of weed control had failed, then where possible, steps would be taken to restrict access to areas in which glyphosate had been used until the chemical was no longer active. The costs associated with non-glyphosate methods of weed control were detailed in the report which would be presented to the Panel, and which included both the cost of staff resources and the costs associate with non-glyphosate materials. The Panel was advised that the Council was far ahead of similar authorities in its approach to weed control, and the report which was before the Panel contained details of other local authorities who had been involved in partnership working with the Council.

Ted Benton attended the meeting and addressed the Panel in pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He wished to add a positive argument for ceasing to use glyphosate. The main benefit which he wished to mention was the huge variety of wildflowers which had grown in Priory Street in the 4 years since glyphosate had last been used. He considered that the countryside was now such a hostile environment for wildlife, that there was a need to protect those spaces in our urban areas which had enormous potential for biodiversity, where flowers attracted insects and birds, giving rise to complex ecosystems. He did, however, consider that it was necessary to restrict the development of perennials and woody plants which could become a longer-term issue for infrastructure, but such plants could be cleared by mechanical means. Mr Benton had also heard a rumour that the Council’s ‘No Mow May’ scheme had been phased out, and considered that if this were the case then this would be disastrous. He believed that areas of open space which had been well-managed by the Council’s officers through leaving areas of long grass served to attract butterflies and wildflowers, and were a triumphant success.

In response, the Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer confirmed to the Panel that the Council managed various areas across the city, such as Land Lane and Riverside Walk were grass was left long to promote biodiversity. Additionally, normal grass-cutting frequency had reduced over the preceding year, and open spaces were only cut once a month. Many areas would be cut at the end of April, meaning that they were not cut again during May. Although in some areas the grass would be cut for community events, highway verges were only cut 6 times per year, which meant that the cutting regime for most areas of grassland would coincide with ‘No Mow May’.

Mr Benton was pleased to receive the assurance which had been offered, noting that even areas which did not contain long grass benefitted from a reduced cutting regime.

Yana, Lindsay and Anna, local students, attended the meeting and addressed the Panel in pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1).

They had attended the meeting as representatives of a University-led campaign to address pollution in the River Colne. The campaign sought to recognise the deep personal and historical significance of the river, recognising the days when the riverbanks were lively with shipyards and trade, as opposed to the dirty waters, sewage smells, and neglect of the present time. Of respondents to a survey, 85% had told the group that they would spend more time by the river if it were cleaner, with many flagging pollution, especially sewage overflow, as their primary concern.

The Panel heard that pollution from urban runoff, agricultural chemicals, plastic waste, and untreated sewage were severely harming the river’s ecosystem, with poor water quality and pH levels recorded far above recommended thresholds. Recreational use of the river had become unsafe and local businesses, especially around the Hythe, had suffered due to the odour and inaccessibility.

Although efforts had been made to address the issues, including monitoring initiatives and the partial removal of a sunken boat at Hythe Quay, more action was required.

The request of the group was to ensure that the clean the river was cleaned at least twice a year, and that the Council and the Environment Agency committed to 3 long-term solutions:

1. Improve monitoring and hold polluters accountable. The King Charles Water Act should be backed by visible, enforceable action.

2. Implement green solutions like natural drainage systems and riverbank improvements to reduce runoff and encourage safe public use.

3. Help build a community culture that valued the river, by leading large-scale clean-ups and inspiring volunteer action.

A cleaner river would engender greater civic pride, higher property values, and a more sustainable Colchester. The River Colne should be reclaimed as a shared, living resource for future generations and for the wellbeing of the town.

The Chair of the Panel noted that the Council’s Climate Change and Sustainability Manager would provide a written response to the group within 10 working days, and this was welcomed by the group who reiterated that they wished to build a project for the future to enable the river to be enjoyed by all.

A Panel member welcomed that the issued had been highlighted to the Panel, but considered that local residents also had a role to play in river conservation and improvements. She recommended that the students contact River Action, which was an organisation which encouraged residents to monitor the quality of water in rivers through the provision of testing kits. The students were further encouraged to reach out to activists who had previously taken an interest in the River Colne, such as Fergal Sharkey.

Councillor Cufoglu attended the meeting and addressed the Panel in pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 4 (1). He expressed his gratitude to Officers who had recently met with him to explore fostering the community partnerships which both he and Councillor Goacher had advocated for during the last Panel meeting. He had reached out to neighbouring councils, and had been particularly impressed by responses from Chelmsford City Council and Manningtree Town Council. He believed that neighbouring authorities were equally environmentally conscious and ambitious, and would welcome further conversations regarding potential joint environmental initiatives.

Turning to the report which was before the Panel, he noted that in previous years Officers from Neighbourhood Services had confirmed that they had equipment for hand weeding, how was the cost of this calculated, and how much equipment was already contained in the Council’s depots? He believed that it would potentially be beneficial to co-ordinate with residents and stakeholder groups to develop a plan, leading to 2 ‘big cleans’ per year. Was it possible to prioritise areas under the ‘branching out’ scheme which had been identified as areas for potential glyphosate spraying? Additionally, what had been the impact on costs of scaling back the Council’s ‘No Mow May’ policy? He noted that the report made reference to a claim in January 2020 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, however, he considered that this reference was out of date and potentially misguiding following a lawsuit in North America in June 2022 which had removed EPA approval of this common herbicide.

Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, attended the meeting and responded to Councillor Cufoglu. She provided details of the hand weeding kits which had been mentioned, at the cost of £45. The Council’s Neighbourhoods Team was not able to provide additional kit due to budgetary constraints. Working with neighbourhood groups was an area addressed in the Officer’ report, but in term of maintaining a regular band of volunteers, the co-ordination of such groups would be labour intensive. This was, however, a strategy which was being considered.

In relation to the reference which Councillor Cufoglu had made in respect of funding, she confirmed that the Panel was being asked to consider a way forward, and one of the options which was contained in the Officer’s report would require additional funding. The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) element of the report had been left blank as it required consideration to be given to groups which would be disproportionately affected by any decision made, and it had been considered that any decision taken would not disproportionately affect one group more than another. As the Council’s policy had not changed, the EIA had not been updated, however, it would be updated if, and when, the policy did change. Councillor Cufoglu was assured that weeding volunteers would be directed to areas where it had not been possible to control weeds using other methods, targeting hotspot areas where possible. Officers were always willing to work with colleagues from neighbouring local authorities.

Cllr Cufoglu expressed his gratitude for the comprehensive response. If the Panel decided to support option 2 in the Officer’s report, he would be more than happy to use his locality budget to support this.

Cllr Goacher attended the meeting and addressed the Panel in pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 4 (1). He had received 3 complaints during the week from residents who were concerned that wildflowers had been chopped down, and residents raised more concerns over this issue than had been raised about the overgrowth of vegetation in Trinity Churchyard, for example. In respect of the use of glyphosate, he reminded the Panel that in 2018 a successful claim had been brought in North America by an employee who contracted non-hodgkin’s lymphoma following the use of glyphosate. With regard to the Council’s previous ban on glyphosate, he believed that this was now being reconsidered not necessarily due to the financial pressures, but because the alternative methods of weed control were difficult to deliver. It was concerning that neighbouring councils who had been contacted for clarification on their weed control methods had not responded, particularly given the likely implications of local government reorganisation (LGR). He considered that cost savings which could be achieved through working together with other local councils could actively support the use of other methods of weed control, such as foam stream, which had previously proved too expensive. One of the proposals which was before the Panel was for single droplet use of glyphosate, whoever, this needed to be trialled over a growing season in order for its effectiveness to be accurately gauged. His concern was that if this method was perceived to be less effective than hoped then the full use of glyphosate would return.

David Carter, Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer, attended the meeting and confirmed to the Panel that foam stream had been trailed in 2020, however, this method of weed control only killed surface vegetation and not the root, and hand weeding had been found to be more effective, which had led to an increase in costs over the preceding 4 years to support hand weeding teams. The use of single droplet application of glyphosate had never been carried out by the Council before and was just one of the options the Panel was being asked to consider. It would be difficult to provide the cost associated with this method, as the previous year’s vegetation growth was very different to the currents year’s growth, and it would be necessary to carry out a trial to determine whether this method was effective

Councillor Goacher explained that his foremost concerns were that what was being proposed was a first step towards a wider reintroduction of glyphosate, and given the implications of LGR, the Council should really be considering working more closely with neighbouring authorities.

Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer outlined the options which were contained in the Officer’s report. The Panel heard that it had considered the report at a previous meeting, and the recommendation which it had made had recently been considered by Cabinet, who had referred the report back to the Panel for a decision. The report set out the biodiversity and health issues related to the use of glyphosate as well as considering in detail the outcomes and impacts of the different methods of vegetation control used since 2020, highlighting where these methods had been successful and where they had not been effective. Following the Cabinet meeting, the report which was before the Panel contained 3 options, and the Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer presented these to the Panel with the request that it make a recommendation to Cabinet.

A Panel member advised that she could not be supportive of the use of glyphosate under any circumstances, and so could only support options 1 and 2 from the report. She considered that the cost assessment of hand weeding which had bene made related to Council staff, however, if volunteers were recruited that this cost would reduce. If groups of residents lived in the locality of play areas and agreed to maintain these, then glyphosate free alternatives could be effective for them. She believed that local residents would be interested in maintaining their local area, and would volunteer to do so. Acknowledging the point which had been made concerning the cost of managing groups of volunteers, was it possible to consider using an external agency or charity to carry out this function? It was important that weeds were controlled on play areas to protect children using them, and this needed to be treated as a priority.

The Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer confirmed that the second option presented in the report did concern volunteers, and if this option was the choice of the Panel, then Officers would look to work with volunteers in the vicinity of playgrounds, which could be a priority.

A member of the Panel considered that the report did not take account of rural areas and what parish councils were doing to control weeds in their parishes. He considered that in order to make a decision, the Panel required evidence, and this was lacking in the report which had been presented to it. He wished to see information concerning environmental or health evidence before he was able to make an informed judgement. The idea of working with volunteers was a good one, although there could be potential issues when volunteers no longer wished to fill their role, and more closely working with parish councils was suggested. What was the Council’s policy with regard to the use of glyphosate?

The Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer confirmed that stopping the use of glyphosate 4 years ago had been carried out as a trial, and since this phasing out different methods of weed control had been trialled and changed each year according to weather conditions or the success of different methods. He was happy to consider how town and parish council approached grounds maintenance, although this would obviously fall outside the remit of the Council’s grounds maintenance contract. In terms of the evidence presented in the report, he conceded that there were a large number of differing opinions on the health and environmental implications of the use glyphosate, however the report did address health implications at section 5.2.

The Head of Sustainability advised the Committee that the report before it had included evidence from scientists, although it was potentially not possible to provide a definitive answer in relation to the health implications of glyphosate given the wide range of differing opinions on the subject. In terms of the policy, the current Greening Policy was concerned with the phasing out of glyphosate on areas which the Council could control and manage, and the Council could not dictate what other organisations such as parishes did on their own land, although it could certainly encourage good practice.

A Panel member remained unsatisfied with the response which he had received, and considered that the Council needed to adopt a ‘catch-all’ policy which it could encourage others to adopt. He was unable to provide a view on the report before the Panel as, in his view, it did not contain sufficient evidence.

The Head of Sustainability confirmed that the Council’s Greening Policy provided for the phasing out of the use of glyphosate, and the reason that the report had been presented to the Panel was because Officers had been asked to present a review of the trial which considered the positive and negative implications of the trial. The report before the Panel highlighted the implications of reducing glyphosate on the Council’s grounds maintenance contract for land which the Council managed, together with the options for addressing those implications. A variety of alternate weed control methods had been tried, and to continue with this variety was possible, although this carried a cost implication. The Council did seek to work with other local authorities, and had recently received confirmation from Babergh and Mid Suffolk Council that it had removed the use of glyphosate, but that County and Parish Council had re-introduced it.

A member of the Panel supported the idea of using community volunteers to help with maintenance of public spaces, and wondered whether linking up with existing community groups may provide an additional source of willing volunteers. Any use of volunteers would have to be carefully planned, and the additional pressure this would potentially place on staff was recognised, however, there may also be the option of promoting successful projects via social media. It would be helpful for the costs of a volunteer scheme to be examined, together with a plan of engagement with community partners to build pride in neighbourhoods.

The Head of Sustainability supported the suggestion, and confirmed that Officers already worked with the Council’s Neighbourhoods Team on events such as the Big Spring Clean Day. Part of the issue with using volunteers was that it would not be possible to provide training to them all, and in some areas weed picking without training could create other issues through damaging surfaces, for example. It was necessary to create a planned programme of work for the whole city in relation to weed management, and co-ordinating a team of volunteers to assist with this work would require significant additional staffing resource. The Panel was asked to note that the implementation of such a project represented a significant piece of work which would likely require an additional full-time post being created with a total approximate cost of £50,000 per year. The Panel requested that the costs of implementing a volunteer scheme be explored further.

Although a Panel member was generally in favour of the use of volunteers, she considered that the use of flames to control weeds was potentially dangerous, and noted the physical difficulty inherent controlling certain types of weeds through hand weeding. Weeds not only looked unsightly but also carried health and safety risks due to posing a tripping hazard. Given the importance of ensuring that effective weed control was maintained across the city, it was not felt that it was appropriate to rely on volunteers to deliver this service, as any shortfall on the availability of volunteers would then require additional investment to address. More evidence needed to be presented to the Panel before she felt able to vote on the issue.

The Parks and Open Space Improvement Officer had extensive experience with working with volunteers, and acknowledged both the positive and negative elements of this. The control of weeds was very different to controlling litter, as a failure to control weeds before they had flowered could lead to their spread. There was a potential for volunteers to assist in some areas, but the provision of necessary training was an issue, and this would be required to prevent damage to property or injury to the volunteers.

In discussion, the Panel summarised the debate which had taken place and requested that that Officers prepare a revised report containing additional evidence from partners such as parish councils, Essex County Council, neighbouring local authorities and local maintenance companies, the cost of a volunteer scheme and a balanced report on health and environmental impacts. This would allow an informed decision to be taken prior to making a recommendation to Cabinet.

RESOLVED that:

• The Officer’s report which had been presented to the Panel be revised prior to being re-presented to the Panel to include:
  
  • Additional evidence from external partners including Parish Councils, Essex County Council, neighbouring local authorities and local maintenance companies examining how and why glyphosates were used by them.
  • The cost associated with setting up, running and maintaining a volunteer scheme to support weed control in the district.
  • Balanced information on the health and environmental implications of the use of glyphosate.

The Panel considered a report which set out its work programme for the current municipal year.

The Panel considered that consideration should be given to receiving a report on the nature of the pollution in the River Colne, and the Council’s role in tackling this. It further wondered whether it was appropriate for it to receive a report which considered whether there was sufficient water supply to meet future developments.

Officers would consider the suggestions for inclusion in the work programme for the forthcoming municipal year.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the work programme be noted.