Residents demand new street spraying policy

Residents of BS3 have complained after streets were sprayed with the controversial herbicide glyphosate.

Plants on private property were sprayed alongside those on the pavement, with signs categorically stating ‘do not spray’ ignored.

Bristol City Council say they are reducing its use to support ecological health, but street spraying has been contracted to Bristol Waste who continue to use the chemical despite residents’ opposition.

Residents have highlighted the irony of Bristol City Council planting wildflowers in some areas and destroying them in others – photo: anonymous

One BS3 resident who asked to remain anonymous said, “When you add up all the miles of streets, walls and gutters being sprayed, that’s a huge expense in labour and undesirable polluting chemicals.”

Another resident, Caroline Rigg, said, “I am beyond angry that Bristol City Council has re-started weed spraying along our streets without prior consultation or warning.

“The self-seeded wildflowers and foliage growing at the base of my front wall were a source of pride and delight to myself and passers-by.

“In this time of environmental crisis it absolutely beggars belief that, as well as polluting the environment, you are wilfully killing off the plants which provide vital sustenance to under-threat pollinators.”

Caroline was told the spraying is necessary to remove weeds considered ‘trip hazards’ or that break up the pavement.

Ben Barker, BS3 Wildlife Group secretary, doesn’t agree:

“What about the bins, potholes, or cars parked on the pavement, much more significant trip hazards – there doesn’t seem to be any action on those.”

Ben suggests weeds do not break up the pavement, but simply take advantage of existing cracks.

“Ultimately this solution is looking at the wrong problem, isn’t dealing with it in an appropriate way, and there are health risks to humans, insects and plants,” he says.

“As wildlife people, we think weeds are pretty important.”

Ben says householders could easily remove the weeds themselves in a matter of minutes, as he does, without damaging the environment – photo: Ben Barker

The use of glyphosate is mired in controversy, with long-running disputes about its human health impacts.

Countries across Europe are gradually phasing out its use. The Netherlands implemented a home-use ban in 2014, followed by France and Austria in 2019, and Germany in 2023.

Glyphosate-based weed control along German and Swiss railway tracks will be replaced by environmentally-friendly methods by 2025.

The chemical has dangerous impacts on mammalian cardiovascular systems, is “toxic to aquatic life”, and presents a serious risk to wildlife including, insects, birds and butterflies.

Ben meets regularly with councillors Kye Dudd and Ellie King to discuss progress on the Ecological Emergency Strategy. It sets a citywide pesticide reduction target of 50 per cent but Ben is concerned the council is currently setting a bad example and monitoring is lacking.

“We’re working closely with the council and in many ways their heart is in the right place, but nobody’s perfect,” he says, stressing that dialogue is open, positive and ongoing.

“There has been some progress – not nearly as much as one would hope, but in a sense that’s always the case.

“They can’t do it all in one go and we don’t expect that. We just want to know how far they’ve got and if there are ways we can help.”

As well as wildflowers being destroyed, residents said spraying has stopped them growing vegetables such as tomatoes in their front gardens – photo: anonymous

The BS3 resident whose ‘do not spray’ sign was ignored has issued a plea to the council:

“Clear gutters of foliage blocking water flow, but not with chemicals. Remove damaging plants where needed.

“But there is no excuse not to supply information regarding the schedule of intended spraying so that we and our councillors are informed both of the reasons and the expense, and can consider alternatives.

“The public need a simple way to register objections and opt out. Until then, sprayers should be required to comply where the occupant has made it very clear they do not want spraying along their property.”

This piece of independent journalism is supported by The Extra Mile and the Bristol24/7 public and business membership.

Main photo: anonymous

Read next:

• How to help wildlife during the colder months
• Campaigners claim protections on wildlife havens ‘incorrectly’ ignored
• ‘We all need to find a way to reduce, and ideally eliminate, pesticide use’

Listen to the latest Bristol24/7 Behind the Headlines podcast: