Agenda item

Item 8 (i)

 

Mr Eber Kington (Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes:

·         The importance of trees in slowing the pace of climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the air, as well as providing a habitat for wildlife

·         The contribution trees make to the environment in our towns including shading and cooling, pollution and noise mitigation, as well speeding up floodwater drainage and improving the quality of our street scene.

 

This Council further notes:

·         The Government’s pledge in 2018 to plant 11 million new trees by 2050, including in towns and urban areas, and the appointment of a national Tree Champion with a remit to make this happen.

 

In support of the national campaign to increase the number of trees being planted, particularly in our towns, this Council therefore:

                I.        Calls for a review of Surrey County Council’s current policies on, and attitude towards, the planting of trees in urban areas with a view to introducing a more proactive policy, which looks to increase the number and regularity of trees planted;

 

              II.        Calls for the new strategy to include providing opportunities to educate children in understanding the benefits of trees and to get involved in tree planting;

 

             III.        Recommends closer partnership working with Borough and District Councils, and landowners seeking sites for new tree planting; and

 

            IV.        Recommends that Surrey Highways take advantage of any outside funding to assist with costs, including any Borough and District schemes that enable residents and community groups to fund the planting and future maintenance of trees.

 

 

Item 8 (ii)

 

Mr Mike Goodman (Bagshot, Windlesham and Chobham) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement that the UK will eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050:

This council notes:

This council welcomes:

Therefore, this council resolves to:

 

Item 8 (iii)

Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

Managing Verges for Wildlife

Surrey County Council is responsible for managing highway verges and related highway owned land. This includes the cutting of verges and the use of weed killer. The way in which it manages this land has an impact on wildlife and amenity.

This Council notes that each of Surrey’s eleven boroughs and district areas has a contract to cut verges on behalf of the County Council which results in many of Surrey's highway verges being cut typically at least twice each year (where speed limits are over 50mph) and more often in urban areas.

Surrey's highway verges being cut several times each year means verges are cut before many wildflower plants have had a chance to flower. Wildflowers need to be available for insects when in flower and to be left long enough to have seeded before being cut. Cutting regimes should be timed to allow wildflower verges to self-perpetuate and improve the wildlife value of verges. Many councils who have reduced cutting regimes have also found it saved money.

Furthermore, this Council notes that its contracts for management of its highway verges include the use of Glyphosate weed killer. Other councils, including Croydon and Lewes, have committed to be pesticide free, the latter successfully adopting weed killer-free alternatives after six months of trials.   

Council therefore agrees to:

1. Review and reduce the timing and frequency of highway verge cuts across the County to increase biodiversity and manage our verges as wildlife habitats, and work with partners to produce a pollinator action plan to guide verge cutting contracts;

 

2. Communicate to residents the reasons for the change of management and the importance of road verges as wildlife habitats; and

 

3. Commit to phase out use of Glyphosate on Surrey Council's own land over the next two years.

 

 

 

Item 8(i)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Mike Goodman moved:

an amendment to the motion set out in the agenda for this meeting in his own name, as follows: (with additional words in bold/underlined and any deletions crossed through)

 

 

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement that the UK will eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050.

This council notes: 

This council welcomes:

 

 

 

Therefore, this council resolves to: 

 

Members agreed to accept the amendment and therefore it became a substantive motion.

 

Mr Goodman made the following points:

 

• Stressed the importance of climate change and welcomed the County Council’s announcement of a “Climate Emergency”.
• Thanked all those involved in Surrey County Council for the actions taken to tackle climate change and that there must be a collaborative approach.
• That there was a need to develop and deliver an action targeted climate change strategy for Surrey by next spring. To ask the Environmental Commission and the newly formed Select Committee Task Group, partners, District and Borough Councils to help deliver this.
• That individual action is critical for meaningful climate change, it was not just about the environment but about justice and the community.
• Surrey County Council listened to its resident’s concerns for a clean and safe environment addressed through its 2030 Vision.
• That the legal obligations surrounding climate change were not fully addressed until 2008 by the United Kingdom through its Climate Change Act.   
• Welcomed greater awareness of the issue over last ten years through Sir David Attenborough’s Blue Planet documentary, Extinction Rebellion’s cause and praised Greta Thunberg’s campaign.
• Highlighted the importance of the report by the Committee on Climate Change this May on its document on “net zero” emissions by 2050 now enshrined in law in the United Kingdom.
• Climate change required the embracing of new technologies, multi-agency collaboration and action plans between the government and local authorities.
• That Aviation contributed to CO2 and non-CO2 warming effects. The United Nations’ International Civic Aviation Organisation to develop an approach to mitigate this.
• That the United Kingdom must consider the upcoming report by the Committee on Climate Change on the impacts on the climate from the aviation sector and consider Heathrow expansion further.
• That Surrey County Council’s use of renewable energy was low new targets needed to be set in line with the Leader’s Environment Charter.
• The highest levels of CO2 and NO2 emissions in Surrey County Council were from transport.
• The Council needed to review its public transport provision, buses to be zero emissions in the future and more fast-charging points for electric cars would be required.
• That seven out of eleven districts and boroughs are at a very good green standard for energy efficiency for new builds, this would be improved thorough partnerships.
• That recycling rates in Surrey were among the highest in United Kingdom, but 2016 data showed that 121,000 tonnes of CO2 could have been saved from recycling going to landfill, service to report this annually.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Will Forster, who made the following comments:

 

• Climate change was the biggest concern facing the United Kingdom and that there was an uncertainty around climate change policies with the change of Government.
• That this action should have happened sooner as earlier motions in the year were on climate change.
• Praised the work of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste for leading the way with the declared “Climate Emergency”.
• That the Council needed a comprehensive plan for the climate crisis so that Surrey would be greener, cleaner and safer.

Eight Members made the following points:

• That expectations would be raised after agreeing this motion, there needed to be substantive and measurable policies on climate change not just rhetoric.
• That the role of public transport was critical including the need of a greater provision of electric buses.
• That climate change must be a matter of policy prioritisation even in times of economic distress.
• Collaboration on this amended motion led the way towards a zero carbon Surrey.
• There was a need for a new officer team of sustainability, renewable energy and green investment specialists to rethink public transport in Surrey.
• That more than £1 billion was needed for greener energy, the modern way of living was responsible for more than 40 times of the CO2 that trees could absorb in Surrey.
• The Council must stop the support of Gatwick expansion through real estate investment and must halt Heathrow expansion taking over Spelthorne.
• That a new minerals strategy was needed which focussed on renewables.
• That the Council should divert £145 million of pension funds divested in drilling for oil, gas extraction and coal mining to green alternatives.
• The United Kingdom to be advanced of the global target of 2040-55 net zero CO2 emissions and 71 Councils had signed up to a 2030 plan of action.
• That there needed to be collective action by all in Surrey not just County Councillors, encourage household energy efficiency and recycling.
• Highlighted the Plastic-Free Woking initiative helping shoppers to reduce plastic waste.
• Surrey County Council to lobby Government through the eleven Surrey Members of Parliament, not just write to them.
• District and Borough Councils’ to address this issue in parallel with Surrey County Council.
• Concern over the impact of atmospheric pollution on children’s learning and development, address use of vehicles outside schools.
• Questioned the motion’s declaration of a “Climate Emergency” raised earlier this year, that there had been no significant change on the Council’s legal standing to declare this emergency. 

 

The Chairman asked Mr Goodman, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

• The Government and new prime minister would not roll back on its net contribution to climate change as it was now law, the first G7 country to legislate this.
• That he had written to the government three times on the last motion on climate change, the Government legislated for the report on “net zero” CO2 emissions by 2050 and this document was recommended to the Council.
• Agreed that it was a joint effort by all in Surrey.
• Highlighted the need to address climate change in schools such as the anti-idling campaign to reduce the level of harmful emissions.
• That Government commitment on this issue was essential, and he would put this concern to the Rt. Hon Michael Gove MP for Surrey Heath.

 

The substantive motion was put to a vote with 68 members voting for, 0 voting against and 1 abstention.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement that the UK will eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050.

This council notes: 

This council welcomes:

Therefore, this council resolves to: 

1. commit to working closely with the Government, the Environment Agency, our Borough & District colleagues, local businesses,  our residents and other partners in meeting this ambitious target.

 

2. deliver a strategy in 2019/20 involving a task group that clearly outlines how we plan to deliver the target including actions that will be taken.

 

3. write to the government asking them to confirm what support will be made available to local authorities to help achieve this goal.

 

4. declares a ‘Climate Emergency’, and commits actions to support businesses and all local authorities in their work to tackle climate change by providing a strong unified voice for councils in lobbying for support to address this emergency, and sharing best practice across all councils.

 

Item 8(ii)

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Eber Kington moved the motion, which was:

This Council notes:

 

• The importance of trees in slowing the pace of climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the air, as well as providing a habitat for wildlife
• The contribution trees make to the environment in our towns including shading and cooling, pollution and noise mitigation, as well speeding up floodwater drainage and improving the quality of our street scene.

 

This Council further notes:

 

• The Government’s pledge in 2018 to plant 11 million new trees by 2050, including in towns and urban areas, and the appointment of a national Tree Champion with a remit to make this happen.

 

In support of the national campaign to increase the number of trees being planted, particularly in our towns, this Council therefore:

 

1. Calls for a review of Surrey County Council’s current policies on, and attitude towards, the planting of trees in urban areas with a view to introducing a more proactive policy, which looks to increase the number and regularity of trees planted;

 

2. Calls for the new strategy to include providing opportunities to educate children in understanding the benefits of trees and to get involved in tree planting;

 

3. Recommends closer partnership working with Borough and District Councils, and landowners seeking sites for new tree planting; and

 

4. Recommends that Surrey Highways take advantage of any outside funding to assist with costs, including any Borough and District schemes that enable residents and community groups to fund the planting and future maintenance of trees.

 

Mr Kington made the following points:

• That the climate had changed physically and attitudinally on the issue of tree-planting.
• There was a growing demand for the planting of more trees in country, the United Kingdom appointed the first Tree Champion Sir William Worsley in 2018 dedicated to planting 12 million new trees.
• That the Council and Surrey Highways had not recognised the change fast enough in line with the government and local environmental groups- no new trees were planted in Epsom and Ewell since 2004.
• That since 2017, residents in Epsom and Ewell could request an approved and appropriate tree to be planted by borough councils in a verge at the cost of £250 if Surrey Highways agreed the application.
• Noted that Surrey Highway’s policy on the measurements required for tree planting on verges was not fit for purpose.
• That new trees were planted in urbanised areas and questioned why the replacement and maintenance of existing trees had not happened.
• That the motion led to a more proactive approach towards tree planting with local organisations and district and borough councils identifying suitable sites.
• Epsom and Ewell had £12,500 to plant new trees but over 140 sites identified for tree planting were rejected by Surrey Highways.
• That there was a disconnect between Surrey Highways and district and borough councils on tree-planting.
• This Council must work cross-party and utilise its partnerships to be committed to planting more trees to tackle climate change.
•  Praised the work of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste and the Leader of the Council. 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Goodman, who made the following comments:

 

• That he hoped to make an imminent final announcement on the Council’s commitment to the planting of more trees.
• That he was committed to Surrey’s 2030 Vision, that residents live in a clean, safe and green community.
• That the Government announced that it wanted to plant more than 10 million trees and has put £60 million to fund this.
• That new trees must be planted in the right areas, to be safe and maintained.
• The Woodland Trust to plant several million trees and had given away thousands of new trees to schools and communities.
• Surrey County Council would work more closely with environmental partners, with schools and its local councils to plant more trees.
• That the Council supported Surrey Wildlife Trust’s “Hedgerows Heroes” project.
• Reported that there were over 280 million trees in the United Kingdom and Surrey was the most wooded county which covered 22% of its land.
• That Surrey Heath was the most wooded council in England with 40.6% of its land wooded followed by 40.2% for Waverley.
• That trees reduced air pollution, helped against flooding, and created important habitats increasing biodiversity.  
• That Surrey County Council will work with the Surrey Nature Partnership so that trees are just planted and forgotten, must be maintained.

Thirteen Members made the following points:

·         That there appeared to be a greater destruction of current trees than the planting of new trees.

·         Raised the possibility of having blanket Tree Preservation Orders (TPO's) in Surrey and regenerating ancient woodlands.

·         That planning agreements should take tree re-planting into consideration and noted Hindhead Tunnel project’s provision of 10,000 more trees than were removed.

·         That all have a small part to play to tackle climate change.

·         That within the Worplesdon Division there were five new rowan trees planted this year, to act as a barrier around parking rather than bollards.

·         That tree wardens in Ashtead were instrumental in planting new trees last year.

·         That there was a dispute between district and borough councils and Surrey County Council over the equipment to deal with wires under verges and the difficulty in finding suitable sites for tree planting.

·         That residents and councillors must be informed by Surrey County Council and Surrey Highways on proposed tree cuttings.

·         Highlighted the work of the longstanding Spelthorne tree wardens on the maintenance of trees.

·         That Surrey Highways and Spelthorne Borough Council had worked collaboratively on utilities checks and new tree planting.

·         That new trees planted would be of a smaller, less root bound species than those planted in the 1930s.

·         Recognised that many members have used their allocation to fund the planting of new trees.

·         That Bookham and Fetcham West had proactive tree wardens and the Bookham tree wardens recently planted their 200^th street tree.

·         That there was a difficulty in Epsom and Ewell to get trees planted which would provide benefits to mental health.

·         That trees were highly important for absorbing CO2 emissions and that Surrey County Council was correct in only cutting down diseased and damaged trees in Spelthorne, not due to simple uprooting.

·         Commended the work of the Tree Advisory Board in Epsom which was funded through a Member’s Allocation, but the supply of trees was an issue.

·         Highlighted the Centennial Wood in Epsom and Ewell that has planted hundreds of trees whilst the golf course opposite chopped down hundreds of trees.

·         Suggested to the planning department at Surrey County Council that where trees could not be planted due to uprooting pavements, they be planted in boundary of new developments so the trees overhang onto the pavement.

·         That in Elmbridge there was a problem of the “two-buggy rule” which hindered having replacement trees.

·         That a review be undertaken on Surrey County Council’s policy on cutting down street trees and leaving a stump.

·         Highlighted the Highways Act 1980 Section 142 to the Cabinet Member for Highways on the need for a common policy towards granting licences for the planting of trees and shrubs on highways and the difficulty and costs for obtaining and upholding them.

·         Pointed out a section from the Member/Officer Protocol, that officers can assist members further by avoiding a focus on “obstacles”.

·         That Surrey Highways has reviewed the policy on tree planting by identifying suitable locations, funding and encouraging the use of member allocations, identified different material for pavements so uprooting does not affect the pavement.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Kington, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate.

 

·         He thanked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste for his commitment on the issue of climate change and tree planting.

·         Agreed that suitable locations for new trees and the maintenance of existing trees was essential.

·         That the County Council must respond to the call by residents and tree wardens locally for new trees.

·         Ensure that policies on climate change have real solutions and political will behind them.

·         Hoped that Surrey would become the “tree planting county of the country”.

The motion was put to a vote and received unanimous support.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes:

 

• The importance of trees in slowing the pace of climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the air, as well as providing a habitat for wildlife
• The contribution trees make to the environment in our towns including shading and cooling, pollution and noise mitigation, as well speeding up floodwater drainage and improving the quality of our street scene.

 

This Council further notes:

 

• The Government’s pledge in 2018 to plant 11 million new trees by 2050, including in towns and urban areas, and the appointment of a national Tree Champion with a remit to make this happen.

 

In support of the national campaign to increase the number of trees being planted, particularly in our towns, this Council therefore:

 

1. Calls for a review of Surrey County Council’s current policies on, and attitude towards, the planting of trees in urban areas with a view to introducing a more proactive policy, which looks to increase the number and regularity of trees planted;

 

2. Calls for the new strategy to include providing opportunities to educate children in understanding the benefits of trees and to get involved in tree planting;

 

3. Recommends closer partnership working with Borough and District Councils, and landowners seeking sites for new tree planting; and

 

4. Recommends that Surrey Highways take advantage of any outside funding to assist with costs, including any Borough and District schemes that enable residents and community groups to fund the planting and future maintenance of trees.

 

Item 8(iii)

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Jonathan Essex moved the motion, which was:

Managing Verges for Wildlife

 

Surrey County Council is responsible for managing highway verges and related highway owned land. This includes the cutting of verges and the use of weed killer. The way in which it manages this land has an impact on wildlife and amenity.

 

This Council notes that each of Surrey’s eleven boroughs and district areas has a contract to cut verges on behalf of the County Council which results in many of Surrey's highway verges being cut typically at least twice each year (where speed limits are over 50mph) and more often in urban areas.

 

Surrey's highway verges being cut several times each year means verges are cut before many wildflower plants have had a chance to flower. Wildflowers need to be available for insects when in flower and to be left long enough to have seeded before being cut. Cutting regimes should be timed to allow wildflower verges to self-perpetuate and improve the wildlife value of verges. Many councils who have reduced cutting regimes have also found it saved money.

 

Furthermore, this Council notes that its contracts for management of its highway verges include the use of Glyphosate weed killer. Other councils, including Croydon and Lewes, have committed to be pesticide free, the latter successfully adopting weed killer-free alternatives after six months of trials.

 

Council therefore agrees to:

 

1. Review and reduce the timing and frequency of highway verge cuts across the County to increase biodiversity and manage our verges as wildlife habitats, and work with partners to produce a pollinator action plan to guide verge cutting contracts;

 

2. Communicate to residents the reasons for the change of management and the importance of road verges as wildlife habitats; and

 

3. Commit to phase out use of Glyphosate on Surrey Council's own land over the next two years.

 

Mr Essex made the following points:

• That the timing of verge cutting by contractors with four cuts a year in urban areas and two cuts in rural areas prevents biodiversity and the growth of wildflowers.
• That the weed killer “Glyphosate” was carcinogenic to people and toxic to wildlife, other councils used a greener alternative called “Foamstream”.
• Stop using weed killer on stumps and dig them up and replace them with a new tree.
• Glyphosate affects honey bees and therefore the pollination of wildflowers.
• Two year phasing out of the weed killer was necessary and a pollination action plan to be considered when cutting verges.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr R. Evans, who reserved the right to speak.

 

Mr Furniss moved an amendment which was tabled at the meeting. This was formally seconded by Mrs Bramhall.

 

The amendment was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):

 

Managing Verges for Wildlife

Surrey County Council is responsible for managing highway verges and related highway owned land. This includes the cutting of verges and the use of weed killer. The way in which it manages this land has an impact on wildlife and amenity.

This Council notes that each of Surrey’s eleven boroughs and district areas has a contract to cut verges on behalf of the County Council which results in many of Surrey's highway verges being cut typically at least twice each year (where speed limits are over 50mph) and more often in urban areas.

Surrey's highway verges being cut several times each year means verges may be cut before many wildflower plants have had a chance to flower. Wildflowers need to be available for insects when in flower and to be left long enough to have seeded before being cut. Cutting regimes should be timed to allow wildflower verges to self-perpetuate and improve the wildlife value of verges. Many councils who have reduced cutting regimes have also found it saved money.

This Council notes that 9 out of the 11 Districts and Boroughs manage highway verge cutting and since last year the minimum number of cuts suggested by the County Council has reduced from 7 in urban areas to 4. 

Furthermore, this Council notes that its contracts for management of its highway verges include the use of Glyphosate weed killer.  However, the County Council has a legal obligation to treat and contain some injurious weeds, such as ragwort and Japanese knotweed, in the most effective manner. Other councils, including Croydon and Lewis, have committed to be pesticide free, the latter successfully adopting weed killer-free alternatives after six months of trials.

Council therefore agrees to:

1. Review and reduce the timing and frequency of highway verge cuts across the County to increase biodiversity and manage our verges as wildlife habitats, and work with partners to produce a pollinator action plan to guide verge cutting contracts;

1. Work with the Districts and Boroughs to:

2. Communicate to residents via our website and social media the reasons for the changes  to the frequency of the cuts, explaining the benefits this can have on the wildlife habitat of management and the importance of road verges as wildlife habitats; and

 

3. Commit to phase out use of Glyphosate on Surrey Council's own land over the next two years.

 

3. To trial more environmentally friendly alternatives on the highway and review outcomes after one full cycle use, and then look to reduce the use of glyphosate based on the results of these trials if cost effective to do so.

 

 

Mr Furniss spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

 

• That the amendment offered clarity and ensured the delivery of the policies proposed.
• That there must be continued working with partners in district and borough councils, who as contractors of the work choose the timing and frequency of verge cutting, sometimes taking on additional cost.
• That the amendment includes the trialling of more environmentally friendly alternative weed killers, to protect the bees.
• Ensured that communication with residents over the changes and understand the balance between residents who want the verges cut more frequently and those that want to let them grow.
• That changing the management and policies surrounding verge cutting would incur short-term costs.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Bramhall, who reserved the right to speak.

 

Mr Essex accepted the amendment and therefore it became the substantive motion.

 

Mr Evans, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

• That not all verges needed to be maintained with respect of point i. b. of the motion on cutting verges when it was both “safe and desirable” to do so.
• That verges could be left unmaintained such as the wildflower meadow in Olympic Park, which inspired the 8 mile long wildflower stretch by Rotherham town council on a central reservation, increasing biodiversity and reducing maintenance costs.
• Questioned the “cost effective” wording of environmentally friendly weed killers, that the environmental and human costs as well as the financial cost.

 

Seven Members made the following points:

 

• That residents may be against cutting curbs due to unattractive weeds outgrowing the wildflowers.
• That each borough should go for crowdfunding to plant indigenous wild flowers which would help bees and fruiting trees.
• Pointed out plans to increase the number of central reservations with wildflowers in Surrey Heath.
• That verge cutting can promote road safety and residents were in favour of tidy verges.
• That some tree stumps should be kept as they were important in the lifecycle of beetles.
• That it was a safety issue as on country roads cut verges allow walkers, horse riders and cyclists to avoid oncoming vehicles.
• Asked parish councils in Mole Valley to audit the verges, those that needed to be maintained and those that could accommodate wildflowers.
• That along the A22 in Whyteleafe there were significant verges and these were badly cut yesterday which affected the flora.
• That the Council should support Surrey Wildlife Trusts’ protection of unmaintained corridors to protect biodiversity.
• That Surrey is an equine county and that the example of “ragwort” in the amended motion is problematic as it was not comparable to more difficult treatment of Japanese Knotweed.
• Raised concern with the wording on the “trialling” of more environmentally friendly alternatives “if cost effective to do so”, if it is necessary it should happen regardless of the expense and it should be long-term.
• That there is a call from residents for the County Council to review its policies on grass and verge cutting so that it is flexible and appropriate
• Many residents cultivate their own verges some have wildflowers, but also some have brambles and nettles, policies must be desirable.
• That there is an urban and rural solution, but questioned the meaning of urban in terms of the frequency of verge cutting at four cuts year.
• That a parish had gone Glyphosate free for the last two years and that ragwort was pulled up and burnt.
• That one parish had requested a certain stretch of verges to be unmaintained helping pollinators and biodiversity in the food chain, encouraging pedestrians and horse riders more than vehicles.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Essex, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate.

• Thanked the members for their positive comments on verge maintenance.
• Guidelines must be drawn up with a clear rural/urban distinction in relation to the frequency of verge cutting.
• That “ragwort” should be removed to avoid confusion on effectively dealing with more difficult invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed.
• That future policies would consider maintenance approaches by others such as parish and district councils.
• That the wording of “cost effective” should remain as this appreciated the cost and the effectiveness in relation to being wildlife friendly, which would retain the commitment set out in the original motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The substantive motion was put to a vote with 63 members voting for, 0 voting against and 4 abstentions.

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

Managing Verges for Wildlife

Surrey County Council is responsible for managing highway verges and related highway owned land. This includes the cutting of verges and the use of weed killer. The way in which it manages this land has an impact on wildlife and amenity.

Surrey's highway verges being cut several times each year means verges may be cut before many wildflower plants have had a chance to flower. Wildflowers need to be available for insects when in flower and to be left long enough to have seeded before being cut. Cutting regimes should be timed to allow wildflower verges to self-perpetuate and improve the wildlife value of verges.

This Council notes that 9 out of the 11 Districts and Boroughs manage highway verge cutting and since last year the minimum number of cuts suggested by the County Council has reduced from 7 in urban areas to 4. 

Furthermore, this Council notes that its contracts for management of its highway verges include the use of Glyphosate weed killer.  However, the County Council has a legal obligation to treat and contain some injurious weeds, such as Japanese knotweed, in the most effective manner. Other councils, including Croydon and Lewis, have committed to be pesticide free, the latter successfully adopting weed killer-free alternatives after six months of trials.

Council therefore agrees to:

1. Work with the Districts and Boroughs to:
   1. Produce a pollinator action plan for the next contract period,
   2. To further review and reduce the frequency of highway verge cuts where it is both safe and desirable to do so,
   3. To assist in the management of verges and timings of cuts to promote wildlife habitats.

 

2. Communicate to residents via our website and social media the reasons for the changes  to the frequency of the cuts, explaining the benefits this can have on the wildlife habitat; and

 

3. To trial more environmentally friendly alternatives on the highway and review outcomes after one full cycle use, and then look to reduce the use of glyphosate based on the results of these trials if cost effective to do so.