Updated 1st May 2026
Each year, as we move into spring and summer, the same question returns: should we cut, or should we leave it?
Initiatives like No Mow May have helped bring biodiversity and habitat creation into focus, encouraging authorities to reduce cutting in selected areas. At the same time, operational teams remain responsible for maintaining safe, accessible and usable spaces across the network. What was once a relatively straightforward service has become something far more nuanced, balancing biodiversity, safety, cost and public expectation across the same piece of land.
A growing challenge for local authorities
Grass cutting programmes have traditionally been built around consistency. Fixed schedules, repeatable routes and clearly defined frequencies provide structure and predictability, but they don’t always reflect what’s happening on the ground.
Some areas may not need cutting as often as planned, while others, particularly those affecting visibility or safety, may require more frequent attention. At the same time, expectations vary, with some communities advocating for reduced cutting and others expecting spaces to be maintained in a more traditional way. One of the biggest challenges is not just deciding what to do, but explaining why.
Moving beyond a binary decision
Framing this as a simple “cut vs don’t cut” decision oversimplifies the reality. The challenge is understanding where intervention is needed, where it isn’t, and how to balance different outcomes across the network.
This requires a move away from blanket approaches and towards something more informed, not more complex, but more considered.
The role of better visibility
A more effective approach starts with visibility. Where is cutting genuinely required? Where can it be reduced without impact? Where are the risks if it isn’t done?
In many cases, the information to answer these questions already exists through operational knowledge, inspection data and historic activity. The challenge is bringing that together in a way that supports clearer, more consistent decision-making. This allows teams to move away from reactive or expectation-led responses and towards a more structured, evidence-led approach.
A more balanced approach
This doesn’t mean removing structure altogether. Cyclical programmes still play an important role, but they can be supported by a more flexible approach that targets resource where it has the greatest impact, reduces unnecessary activity where it doesn’t, and provides a clearer rationale for how decisions are made.
This creates a more balanced model, one that can respond to changing priorities without losing control of the service.
Looking ahead
As expectations continue to evolve, whether driven by biodiversity goals, climate pressures or public perception, the way green infrastructure is managed will need to evolve with it. The challenge is not choosing one priority over another, but creating an approach that allows all of them to be considered and managed together.
Ultimately, this is about building a more resilient approach to managing green infrastructure, one that can respond to changing expectations, climate pressures and operational demands over time.