Councillors in pitch battle over 3G field
Row over plastic health issues
COUNCILLORS argued over granting planning permission for a 3G football pitch at Brookfield Community School.
Fareham Borough Council’s planning committee originally refused the application but after deliberations, it was approved on a second vote.
Concerns about noise, light and microplastic pollution were raised by residents and councillors.
A 3G pitch or third generation synthetic surface uses artificial grass fitted with a performance infill or ‘rubber crumb’ used as a shock absorbent.
The UK Health Security Agency commented on the application stating that there is little concern over the performance infill with regards to personal health.
The Football Foundation advised residents at a community engagement meeting that there are no cost-efficient alternatives to using the infill.
Councillor Katrina Trott dismissed the guidance: ‘Just because all these bodies say there are no health concerns doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be health concerns.
‘There’s so much microplastics in watercourses now even from clothes being washed they’re finding that out.
‘Just because they say it’s safe doesn’t mean it is and I know I'm going to be a voice crying in the wilderness and I am going to object on this ground.’
Councillor Connie Hockley agreed: ‘We’re talking about being a council that’s going green. I think in this application and any application sent before us, we should consider the environmental impact.’
However, councillor Ian Walker, chairman of planning, argued: ‘The responsible bodies here have made comment and my feeling is this is more to do with the noise effect.
‘It’s taking a balance between creating a sports facility for our kids. Are we putting them in danger with this rubber crumb effect? According to the experts, no.’
Before the initial vote, Cllr Walker added: ‘If you are going to refuse this you better have some good reasons, I'm telling you, I’m looking at all of you.’
The first vote saw the application refused five votes to four, and the chairman asked each councillor to justify their refusal.
After deliberations and frustrated exchanges, the chairman said the committee doesn’t have ‘a prayer’ in winning the appeal if they refuse.
The committee agreed to a second vote and it was approved with five votes in favour.