Agenda item

The Countryside Manager provided Members with a presentation on the control of Japanese Knotweed in Rhondda Cynon Taf. The Countryside Manager noted that all Members would have heard of Japanese Knotweed or had experience, probably a negative one and provided some background. He noted that Japanese Knotweed affecting properties was mostly quite rare, although he recognised it was a problem. It was important to understand why the plant was so prevalent in the UK and why it did so well, as in its natural environment it didn’t pose the problem that was seen here, mainly because it didn’t have any natural, predators, pests or fungi, so there was nothing to keep it in check. It was very widespread in the UK, including Wales and RCT, in particular. In terms of legislation, this underpinned the responsibility of the Council, and the Countryside Manager took Members through the 3 pieces of relevant legislation that were important, which were the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

The Countryside Manager then went on to explain about the history of treatment of Japanese Knotweed in RCT, noting that herbicide treatment was the most effective and timing of the treatment the most important thing. The problem was, this wasn’t an exact science, and a number of things had a huge bearing on how successful the treatment was, which often meant sites needed to be treated a number of times.  The Countryside Manager then talked about how things had changed, in terms of treatment as a result of Bank and Mortgage Company’s becoming risk adverse because of the lack of information and scaremongering, related to Japanese Knotweed. As a result, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) had produced a guidance paper, which talked about the 7m rule, which had resulted in a huge number of complaints about Japanese Knotweed to the Council.

The Countryside Manager then went on to provide Members with information on how the council dealt with Knotweed complaints on Council land, noting that there were currently 408 sites on the annual treatment programme. In terms of future improvements, the Countryside Manager explained the worrying trend, which had been identified, in terms of legal claims and complaints regarding Knotweed and it had been identified that an Invasive Species Officer was needed, with that role recently being appointed to, which would give more time to dedicate and try and mitigate against legal claims. It was hoped with a dedicated Officer, that there would be a move to some proactive work, improvement to the web advice and reporting system whilst providing more training with staff from other departments. The Countryside Manager ended his presentation by providing Members with a list of useful statistics.

The Chair thanked the Officer for the presentation, following which Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions.

A Member thanked the Officer for the presentation and sought clarification of treatment, by the Council, on private land, and if that couldn’t be done, was there something residents could buy to treat it themselves.

The Countryside Manager explained that the Council could not treat private land because of the huge scale of the problem and the priority was trying to mitigate against legal claims and treatment of Council land. In terms of the advice, the Countryside Manager explained that they did offer advice on how to treat it, best time and best way to approach it, for those that were confident dealing with herbicides. They could also provide advice in terms of looking at an approved contractor to deal with it.

A Member sought clarification on page 91, of the second paragraph of the letter, in relation to land that was managed by the Council, as opposed to owned.

The Countryside Manager explained that it meant the same, effectively although some sites that were owed, but were not actively managed.

The Member also referred to previous media reporting in relation to the introduction of a bug to act as a predator to this species and asked was that something that had happened.

The Countryside Manager noted that this had happened and there was a trial that took place in the Swansea Valley’s however he hadn’t seen any evidence to suggest that this had been a success story.

The Member asked for clarification on what could be done with an absent landlord.

The Countryside Manager noted that the first point of contact was the Public Health Department and an outline of how the process worked, was included in the Appendix.

The Member noted that that there was a carriageway, where Knotweed was coming from the neighbouring gardening and asked if this was something that could be dealt with.

The Countryside Manager explained that if there was Knotweed on Council land and it was affecting a property, that would be a priority and would be looked to be treated.

A Member asked for clarification in relation to private land where knotweed had emanated from a railway embankment, which was now Council bridleway, and the landowner couldn’t be found, and it was now affecting properties.

The Countryside Manager acknowledged it was difficult to comment without specifics and if it was unregistered land, it would be difficult. The Council did treat Knotweed on unregistered land, if it was considered a priority and the budget was available, and it was in the public interest however the Countryside Manager explained there were many examples like this so it would need to be looked at on its individual merits, although it was a difficult balance.

The Member referred to the 442 sites being treated by RCT and noted by his count that there were 78 in Rhondda,164 in Cynon and 200 in Taf, and sought clarification in regard to this.

The Countryside Manager stated that he could not explain precisely, and perhaps it was either more people having Knotweed in these areas, or more people being affected by the Knotweed? He noted that Taf was a bigger area and there maybe more land holdings that were backing on to properties, so there were a number of factors providing those statistics.

A Member, referring to the Members question in relation to a known landowner, who was not responding and asked if action could be taken under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which was land detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood.

The Legal Officer noted that section 215 was a potential option and it could be raised with the planning enforcement team

The Member asked if the Council could do the work and then charge the landowner?

The Legal Officer explained that under a 215 notice this was potentially an option.

The Chair noted that the report stated that £10k had been allocated and there was grant funding of £20k, and asked if this was enough.

The Countryside Manager stated, that if he was honest, it wasn’t enough. He noted that £24k had been spent on the spraying programme alone, this year.

The Chair noted that in terms of the reserves, £873k had been allocated on 34 sites, because of possible legal action and felt it would be useful for Members to know if there was a Knotweed problem in their ward.

The Countryside Manager explained that this information could be provided.

Members RESOLVED to note the information contained within the report and consider the development of a coordinated approach throughout the Council to Japanese Knotweed including the reporting and treatment as well as staff training. Members asked for update in 12 months time on the way forward.