8
Councillor Sarah Whitelock Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, Culture, Leisure and Tourism introduced report ES/2143 which related to East Suffolk Council Policy for new 3G Artificial Grass Pitches.
The Councillor highlighted the importance for young people to access pitches and spaces for activity and team-based sport. 3G pitches could be utilised for 80 hours a week, which was far greater than the accessibility of grass pitches. Since 2000 over 1,000 grass pitches had been lost on a national level and with a population rise of 7%, access to facilities was more challenging.
Councillor Whitelock highlighted the environmental concerns which she had carefully considered. Any 3G pitch that was agreed through CIL funding or on East Suffolk Land would have more controls in place to manage maintenance and environmental impact issues. That included a robust management plan proposed to ensure appropriate funding was in place and on-going operational management would be clear.
The Councillor highlighted that pitches that had poor mitigation in place were the ones which could be more detrimental to the environment.
Councillor Whitelock concluded that the report was an interim position in place until there was the expected evidenced based report on micro plastics from DEFRA was published.
Councillor Ashton added that since 2010 the UK has lost 1,000 football pitches, 10% were in the East of England. An additional demand on available facilities was due to the growing number of women and girls engaging in sports, in particular football following the success of the Lionesses. The Deputy Leader recognised the environmental issues and that the rubber crumb element was predominately made of plastic which would get deposited outside of the pitches via clothing and shoes.
Councillor Ashton discussed the alternative option of grass pitches which require significant maintenance and the use of herbicides and fertilisers within maintenance programmes. The Deputy Leader highlighted that last year 150 competitive games from affiliated clubs lost pitch time due to poor conditions.
The policy would look at ensuring pitches were spread throughout the district, had robust management plans and that support provided only where there was a clear demand.
With the promise of DEFRA research coming out Councillor Ashton felt the report should be supported as was the least bad way to provide the playing capacity for the community.
Councillor Candy stated that she would not be able to support 3G pitches. They destroyed the land underneath them and the cost of maintenance was significant.
Councillor Daly added that there were a few issues to think about and highlighted lighting, ensuring that pitches which were only lit when in use. The Councillor stated that consideration for where pitches were situated was important. Grass pitches should continue to be encouraged.
Councillor Wilson confirmed that the policy was not seeking to replace grass pitches and was applicable to ESL land and where there was a request of CIL funding. The policy would provide the opportunity for more control measures and management for pitches that were agreed.
Councillor Noble raised a concern regarding a reported carcinogenic risk from the pitches and that more information was needed.
Councillor Whitelock stated that the policy was to provide opportunity to ensure a pitch was in the right place, with the right business strategy to make them as safe as possible. Without a clear policy it can be very difficult to manage.
The Head of Communities added that there had been a couple of studies which looked at potential risks cancer and to date there had been no significant findings.
The Leisure Development Partnership Manager provided additional context that there was a wider local football facility plan under a national plan. There were under 10 pitches in question, some of which had planning permissions already in place. The requirement for mitigation and robust management plans was highlighted.
The Chair confirmed that there had not been a previous policy to support the process where CIL funding had been granted. The proposed policy provided East Suffolk Council with some control over what was brought forward and agreed. The Leader confirmed that the administration did not want to have 3G pitches being established all over the district.
The Leisure Development Partnership Manager added that East Suffolk had not lost any football pitches that were owned or operated by the council and that a pitch could not be decommissioned with the approval of Sport England. The policy would not cover any private developments.
Councillor Deacon queried how there could be a guarantee that the pitches would be properly maintained.
The Leisure Development Partnership Manager recognised there had been lessons learned from some established pitches and that future funding agreements would have procedures in place with supporting site visits carried out and appropriate records kept.
Councillor Gooch referenced that the report could be considered a holding document until DEFRA release their report. The Environmental Task Group (ETG) was interested in the issues discussed and would be looking at the DEFRA report. The policy would provide a level of mitigation regarding signing off any pitches that come forward for development.
Councillor Daly stated that from a regulatory point of view there would be a reason to support the item.
Councillor Bennett added that football was the most popular team sport with a surge in girls and women’s football. Pitches were also multi use. The Councillor supported the report.
On the proposition of Councillor Whitelock, seconded by Councillor Wilson it was
RESOLVED
That Cabinet:
1. approves the adoption of the East Suffolk Council Policy for new Artificial Grass Pitches (Appendix A) to guide decision making on funding requests for 3G Artificial Grass Pitches
2. support the policy being reviewed and revised when the DEFRA Report and findings are released, expected in Spring 2025.