Pavement weeds are resilient, wild plants, like dandelion, grass, bindweed, and willowherb. They thrive in tight spaces, grow through cracks and can cause many problems for councils if left untreated.
Damaged public pathways affect residents, especially wheelchair users, parents with pushchairs and people with visual impairments and physical disabilities. As a result, councils receive complaints about the way the streets look and how they put residents at risk. Some people with mobility issues have even said they are too afraid to leave the house for fear of tripping.
When public areas appear to be poorly maintained, property values may lower and antisocial behaviour may take place, as visible neglect reduces respect for the area. Not to mention the cost, as Brighton and Hove City Council spend £50,000 each month repairing pavements affected with weeds and have a backlog of repairs totalling £60 million. As of 2026, they have now introduced Foamstream to help support their weed control and reduce these costs over time.
Every council in the country should be creating solutions to stay on top of pavement weed control. Yet, it’s more complex than simply putting a plan in place. Last year’s Autumn Budget has put even more cost pressure on councils, when they’re stretched enough as it is. Finding a solution that is cost-effective and easy to use is difficult, especially with environmental targets, biodiversity goals and the continued backlash against traditional chemical herbicides, with 65% of the UK public wanting them removed from public spaces.
In this article, we’ll explore how councils can manage pavement weeds more cost-effectively.
What Types of Pavement Weed Killer Do Councils Use?
| Method | Key information | Treatment cycles | Eco-friendly | Is it a good choice for councils? |
| Glyphosate | Widely used across to kill unwanted vegetation by preventing protein synthesis in plants. | 3-5 per year | No | No, due to public perception, health risks and danger to wildlife from glyphosate residue it is not suitable for council use. |
| Manual weeding | The extraction of weeds by hand, or using garden tools. | Variable | Yes | No, it is time consuming, costly, and labour intensive. |
| Flame weeding | Flame weeding is a propane-powered gardening technique that uses intense heat to kill weeds by breaking down their cell walls. | 10 per year | No | No, it is highly dependent on weather conditions. In the worst case scenario, it can cause fire to harm the surrounding area, the user as well as local wildlife and their habitats. |
| Boiling water | Boiling water kills weeds by damaging the plant’s cellular structure. | 4-7 per year | Yes | Yes, but it’s not a strong option as the atmosphere impacts the temperature of the hot water, causing rapid heat loss, leading to quicker regrowth.
This then leads to higher costs for large scale spaces. |
| Strimming | A strimmer is used to cut down weeds. | Twice a month | Yes | No, it disturbs the seedbed, spreading seeds and spores, increasing weed growth and coverage. This leads to more treatments and higher overall costs. |
| Foamstream | Foamstream’s patented low-pressure process combines hot water with a biodegradable foam made from natural plant oils and sugars. Heat cannot escape and penetrates the waxy outer leaf structures, killing the weeds. | 2-3 per year | Yes | Yes, Foamstream poses no danger to humans, animals or the environment, unlike many other methods. |
Cost, Labour and Frequency of Treatment
Local authorities are responsible for removing weeds from hundreds of hard surfaces, including pavements, kerb lines, housing estates, car parks, roads and public facilities. Because of the scale of these areas, even small differences in treatment cost per hectare can quickly add up. The real cost of pavement weed control is not the price of a single treatment, but how often that treatment must be repeated across the year. Understanding the scale of these costs is essential when weighing up which weed control methods are genuinely cost-effective.
Labour time
Manual methods are labour-intensive and difficult to scale across large public spaces. Hackney Council, which went glyphosate-free in 2021, estimated that hand-weeding the borough would cost £500,000 annually.
By comparison, herbicides are far more efficient, typically requiring just one person-day per hectare, whereas manual weeding can demand teams of 10–20 people to achieve the same coverage. However, they can be washed away by rain, reducing their effectiveness, and their use often requires temporary area closures due to potential risks to public health and the environment.
On the other hand, Foamstream works in all weathers. Plus, it keeps weeds in the kill zone up to six times longer than herbicide-free alternatives, leading to more weeds controlled and slower regrowth and far lower labour costs.
Frequency of treatments
To manage 100 hectares effectively, strimming typically requires six treatment cycles per year, Foamstream needs three and herbicides may need two applications.
The real advantage of Foamstream becomes clear over time. Across a five-year period, its overall performance matches that of herbicides, by sterilising seeds and spores, preventing new growth. This means that, rather than simply controlling visible growth, Foamstream actively reduces the underlying weed population. As a result, weed density declines year on year, leading to fewer regrowth cycles, reduced maintenance needed, and ultimately lower labour costs over the long term.
Equipment costs
Manual methods such as strimming and burning may appear cost-effective at first, as they only require an initial investment in equipment and fuel. However, the true cost lies in the level of labour required, which, as we’ve covered, is significantly higher compared to other methods.
Herbicide use involves a broader range of expenses, including the purchase of chemicals, fuel, spraying equipment, and ongoing maintenance, as well as labour costs. Plus, operators must hold PA1, PA2, and PA6 certifications, which can add further time and financial investment.
Foamstream does require an upfront investment, but our flexible finance options aim to make our machines affordable to every kind of business. With options to purchase, rent or finance, you can choose a model to suit your needs. Plus, it doesn’t require a PA1 or PA6 so compliance arrangements and extensive staff training isn’t needed.
Environmental considerations
Manual methods, such as strimming and hand weeding, are environmentally friendly but not practical or scalable for councils. Flame weeding carries risks that can be harmful to the environment. This leaves two truly effective options, herbicides and Foamstream. However, the potential environmental consequences of herbicides make them a risky choice.
They can degrade soil health, disrupt ecosystems, and contaminate waterways, putting both wildlife and plant life at risk. They also generate significant carbon emissions through production, transport, and disposal. Herbicide-free alternatives like Foamstream reduce environmental impact and support progress towards net zero targets. It’s also 100% safe so areas do not need to be cornered off while being treated.
Practical Tips for Cost-Effective Pavement Weed Management
Councils looking to reduce long-term weed control costs should take a more strategic and targeted approach to planning and treatment. They should map where the weeds grow particularly quickly, plan preventative treatment cycles and select a method that minimises regrowth and disrupts the seed cycle.
Effective planning also means looking beyond the upfront cost of a single application. A more meaningful measure is the cost per hectare over time, which better reflects overall efficiency and value. It’s also important to consider the additional benefits the equipment can provide. For instance, Foamstream machines not only provide effective weed control but can also support additional tasks such as surface cleaning and gum removal, helping to maximise return on investment across multiple services.
Why councils are switching to Foamstream
More than half of UK councils are taking steps to becoming herbicide-free, reflecting growing environmental priorities and public expectations. This shift not only benefits local ecosystems and residents’ wellbeing, but also helps councils avoid criticism and build a more positive public image.
When you compare Foamstream to other herbicide-free alternatives, it’s the best option for councils, thanks to fewer annual treatments, lower labour costs and our flexible payment options. With its multi-functionality and the ability to be used in all weathers, it provides a better ROI than other herbicide-free solutions on the market.
For more details, we recommend reading our Guide for Councils.
Over 165 councils in the UK are removing glyphosate from public spaces, and we’re helping them do it safely and effectively. We’ve already supported many councils to make the switch, including Manchester City Council, East Devon District Council and Cornwall County Council.
Please get in touch to discuss what the transition could look like for you.
