News

As we start a new year, I thought it might be worth re-visiting why the Invasive Non Native Specialists Association (INNSA) was originally founded.

Going back twenty years or so, invasive species had become an area for concern and Japanese knotweed in particular had captured the public imagination. Newspaper articles about devalued properties and damage caused by this aggressive invader were appearing regularly and demonised the plant to the point of creating dread amongst homeowners and housebuilders alike.

My personal involvement with Japanese knotweed began in the 1990’s, when I owned and managed both a landscape architectural practice and a landscape design and build company. When Japanese knotweed was found on projects I was working on, I was asked to come up with remediation strategies. The skill sets and teams from my landscaping companies were ideal for comprehensive survey work and the follow-up chemical or physical removal treatment prescribed.

If you only read one line of this article, let it be this one: if you’re selling a home, consider long and hard before you answer “No”, to the question: “is the property affected by Japanese knotweed?” on the TA6 form – you may be much better off if you tick the “Not known” box… maybe even £200,000 better off!

The longer answer is, that if you do want to answer “no” on the form, INNSA would strongly recommended that you have this backed up by a competent professional opinion (ideally a site survey by a competent surveyor, provided by a member of a recognised trade association).

As a health and safety professional, I’m a fan of evidence-based approaches and I love a good scientific study (at this point, I’m sure you’re wondering how you can get me along to your next party!), so it was with interest that I read the recently released Cardiff Council study into the effectiveness of three different weed control methods for hard surface weed control.

The three methods – two herbicides: glyphosate and acetic acid, and a hot foam applicator which kills plants through the physical application of heat – were compared for sustainability in eighteen different categories, including petrol and diesel use, cost, water use and use of labour. The study also measured the effectiveness of the treatments using customer complaints and reports of weeds.

In a recent case heard at County Court in London, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and the defendant found not to be liable for damages or loss of value to her neighbour’s property caused by Japanese knotweed. Furthermore, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, making her liable for a bill estimated to exceed £100,000. Ouch.

While the judge, Grahame Aldous KC, highlighted that the plaintiff had been ‘obstructive’ in the witness box – in contrast to the defendant (a ‘careful witness who was trying to assist [the judge]’) – the crux of the case seems to have been that the judge found it credible that the defendant had not known that…

For many people, the word “audit” inspires a sense of impending doom and a panicked search through files and hard drives to scramble together enough information to deal with whatever unexpected requests the terrible sadist of an auditor might come up with.

I’ve been on both sides of numerous audits and I don’t see anything to fear, so I’d like to give you some insight from an INNSA auditor’s point of view.

Firstly, I can tell you that members’ fears about an INNSA audit are probably misplaced. INNSA members already meet many of the highest standards in the industry by complying with INNSA’s membership criteria, and much of the audit is simply about checking compliance with these standards. There’s little reason to go over the same ground these standards cover.