AN innovative and environmentally-friendly way to kill weeds and moss on Minehead’s streets had not successfully passed a six-month trial, town councillors were told this week.

The council took on weed control in Minehead several years ago when Somerset Council stopped doing it because it was not a ‘statutory service’.

Town councillors agreed to move away from traditional herbicides using glyphosate, a chemical which will be banned in the UK by December of next year after concerns over its environmental impact and on animal and human genetic material.

Clerk Ben Parker said it proved challenging to effectively control street weeds and there were complaints and dissatisfaction among residents.

A Minehead Town Council worker applying the Foamstream weedkiller during a six-month trial which has started.
A Minehead Town Council worker applies Foam Stream weedkiller in a town centre street. PHOTO: MTC. ( )

So, a six-month trial was agreed with Weedingtech last April to use its plant-based Foam Stream, made from natural plant oils and sugars.

Mr Parker told councillors the technology had been tested across various sites, mostly for street weed control, but also in other areas such as allotments, with varying results.

He calculated it would cost the council more than an extra £18,000 per year to continue to operate the system.

Mr Parker said: “As a tourism-dependent town, it is clear higher standards of weed control are often expected, especially in high footfall areas like the town centre and seafront.

“Providing comprehensive weed control across the entire town using Foam Stream alone does not appear to be feasible without impacting other current and future services.

“The areas covered in Minehead could be further impacted if the town council wanted to explore collaboration opportunities with neighbouring town and parish councils to help offset running costs.”

Mr Parker said using Foam Stream had been physically challenging for council staff because the equipment was heavy, while the overall weed kill rate had been ‘disappointing’.

It was found to have a better success rate on open ground such as allotments and in the summer period, but the treatment was slow, so smaller areas were covered than initially anticipated.

Compared solely against glyphosate-based weed control methods, Foam Stream would still fall some way short in terms of kill rate, area coverage, and overall value for money, although it showed the best results among non-chemical options.

Its effectiveness could potentially be improved by using it alongside other equipment such as weed brushes, while better street cleanliness would also help with weed control.

Mr Parker said the council actively sought public feedback on the use of Foam Stream, but the comments received had been extremely limited and not enough to make an informed decision on public opinion.

He said councillors now needed to decide if they wanted to terminate the use of Foam Stream and hand back equipment to Weedingtech, or to go ahead and purchase the operating system.

If Foam Stream was adopted, councillors would need to manage public expectations regarding weed control methods and acceptable weed levels.

Mr Parker said this could be supported by developing a clear weed control policy as part of a long-term strategy, regardless of the decision on Foam Stream purchase.