Practical knowledge from Groundserv

What does sustainable weed control actually look like?

4 October 2026

Reducing herbicide use changes more than the treatment. We explore evidence from UK council trials and the practical choices around repeat visits, resource use, access and cost—and where thermal and mechanical methods can fit.
What does sustainable weed control actually look like?

Recent council trials are looking beyond the treatment itself—and examining what it takes to maintain a site over a full season.

For a grounds team asked to reduce herbicide use, choosing a different treatment is only part of the decision. Visit schedules, staffing, access arrangements and the standard expected by the client may all need reviewing.

A method can work well on a test patch. Whether it fits an entire maintenance round, through a growing season and within the available budget, is another question.

Recent council trials offer useful evidence here. Alongside treatment effectiveness, they reveal the resource requirements and practical compromises that are easily missed in a product demonstration.

A local trial is looking at the whole job

Guildford and Waverley councils announced a new weed-management trial with the University of Surrey in September 2026.

Based at Onslow Park and Ride, the trial includes glyphosate, hot foam and acetic acid. Researchers are assessing weed control alongside water consumption, fuel use, waste and operational requirements. A life-cycle assessment will examine the wider environmental impact of each approach.

The trial is underway; it has not yet established which method performs best.

Its value lies in what is being measured. Avoiding herbicide is one consideration. The resources needed to maintain the required standard are another.

If a treatment needs more frequent applications, those additional visits belong in the assessment. So do any benefits from reducing herbicide use. Neither should be overlooked.

For organisations reviewing their own programmes, this offers a useful basis for comparison: the complete season’s work, rather than a single application.

What happens when the maintenance programme changes?

East Sussex County Council’s December 2023 report on alternative weed-maintenance trials gives a practical example.

The council examined volunteer-managed streets, reactive removal and collaborative strimming and sweeping. Results varied. Some volunteer-managed streets were clear; others retained substantial growth. Volunteers could not work in the road, leaving some drainage channels untreated.

The scheme also required training, insurance arrangements and council administration. Reactive maintenance raised concerns about overgrowth, pedestrian safety and the condition of paved surfaces.

These findings relate to those particular trials and working arrangements. They are not a verdict on every non-chemical method.

They do, however, illustrate how much sits around the treatment itself. Changing a programme can affect who carries out the work, which areas they can cover and how maintenance is coordinated.

Those details matter when a successful local trial is being considered for a wider rollout.

Access depends on the working configuration

On awkward sites, the working configuration can matter more than the footprint of the main unit. With modular systems such as KECKEX, equipment positioning and application tools can be adapted to the area being treated.

A useful demonstration would reflect the actual site: the treatment area, available access and the arrangements needed to work around pedestrians, parked vehicles or other activity.

That gives the team a much better basis for assessing suitability than the dimensions of a standalone machine.

Prevention needs a place in the budget

Sweeping, surface repairs and mulching are established parts of grounds maintenance. The difficulty is often finding scope for preventative work within a contract focused on immediate clearance.

Where the same joints or edges repeatedly need treatment, maintenance records can help make the case for addressing the cause. The comparison is between the cost of preventative work and the recurring cost of keeping that area clear.

Sometimes repairs will be justified. Elsewhere, continued treatment will remain the practical option.

Responsibility can complicate matters too. The team controlling weeds may not hold the budget for surface repairs. A maintenance review that includes both can identify options that are difficult to resolve within either service alone.

One replacement method is unlikely to suit every site

The UK Pesticides National Action Plan 2025 encourages integrated pest management and alternatives that reduce dependency on conventional pesticides.

For amenity management, that means considering prevention and available treatment methods together, with priority given to non-chemical approaches wherever possible. It is not a policy of simply replacing one routine treatment with another everywhere.

Council experience shows why that flexibility matters.

Reading Borough Council’s review of its 2022 trials found glyphosate the most effective and efficient of the methods tested, which included hot water and steam and manual removal. The council nevertheless remained committed to seeking suitable alternatives.

That is evidence from a particular trial, not a universal comparison between every system available today. Equipment, operating methods, treatment schedules and site conditions all affect how useful a result will be elsewhere.

An organisation’s programme might combine mechanical brushing on suitable paving, manual removal in planted areas and thermal treatment where avoiding herbicide is a priority. Other locations may retain carefully targeted, authorised herbicide use where justified.

The balance will depend on the site and the organisation’s objectives. Reducing herbicide use, controlling costs, maintaining access and supporting biodiversity may carry different weight in different locations.

What a trial needs to capture

When comparing methods, treatment time alone can miss a substantial part of the workload. Setup, travel, clearance and return visits affect the cost of maintaining the required standard.

Alongside the team’s existing inspection records, the following measures can help make comparisons more consistent:

  • Starting conditions: surface, weed species, extent of growth and photographs.

  • The work involved: setup, treatment, staff time and any clearance afterwards.

  • Resources used: water, energy, fuel, consumables, waste and travel.

  • Follow-up: remaining growth, regrowth and the interval before another treatment.

  • Operating conditions: weather, access restrictions, public activity and disruption.

Where possible, comparisons need similar starting conditions and enough follow-up to capture repeat work. Otherwise, a heavily overgrown area receiving its first treatment may be judged against one already maintained regularly.

For procurement, the useful cost is the cost of achieving the agreed standard over the assessment period—not just the cost of one visit.

Environmental performance needs the same care. Lower herbicide use is a measurable outcome, but it does not, on its own, establish that a programme has a lower impact in every other respect.

Equipment utilisation also belongs in the purchasing decision. A system that supports surface cleaning or chewing-gum removal as well as weed treatment may serve a wider workload. That does not prove an environmental advantage, but it can change how the investment fits the operation.

Where does that leave professional teams?

The council evidence points towards site-specific decisions, with room to adjust the programme as results become available.

Some areas can tolerate more vegetation. Others need regular intervention to protect access, drainage or surfaces. Prevention may reduce recurring work, while a combination of treatment methods can help organisations meet different requirements across their sites.

The most useful evidence connects environmental objectives with the realities of delivering the service. It gives grounds teams something concrete to take into conversations about budgets, specifications and equipment.

At Groundserv, we supply thermal and mechanical weed-control equipment. Our role is to help customers assess how those options could fit their sites and working practices.

KECKEX’s modular hot-water and steam system adds another option to that assessment. Its value needs to be considered against the work involved, the required result and the resources available—not a claim that one system settles the whole weed-control debate.

We will be demonstrating KECKEX at FutureScape on 13–14 October 2026. Visit Groundserv on Stand OE40 to see it working and discuss how thermal and mechanical methods could fit your operation.



Sources and further reading