Objectors call for plans for new 3G pitch plans to be withdrawn amid cancer link fears

The local authority wants to build the pitches on land off Thorpe Park Approach in east Leeds, alongside a cafe, changing rooms and car park, to meet rising demand for football facilities.

But more than 130 local people have objected to the proposal, with some claiming the artificial pitches will disturb wildlife on the land and contribute to plastic waste.

An engineering consultant also told a committee of local councillors that a young goalkeeper he knew had died from cancer, because of exposure to the materials used to lay 3G surfaces.

The Football Association (FA) and Sport England insist that the pitches, which are widely used across the country, are safe.

Funding for the scheme, which is coming from an organisation backed by the FA and the Premier League, also hinges on the pitches being artificial, rather than grass.

But speaking at a planning meeting on Thursday, Gerald Tetchner claimed the plan conflicted with the council’s commitment to deliver “green infrastructure”.

He said the pitches were created with, “chemicals which are connected to cancer cases, especially among young children who play on these surfaces.”

He added: “What has happened to the green space and quiet areas we were promised for putting up with at (nearby) Thorpe Park and the development there?

“I and others would welcome a natural grassed green area for multiple sports. Please have a re-think.”

Labour councillor Sharon Burke quoted Sport England’s assessment that the pitches do not cause any “negative health effects”. She suggested that the council would have to rely on that view as authority on the subject.

She said: “It’s an incredibly emotive subject because no-one ever wants to hear of anyone, least of all young people, suffering from cancer.

“Whenever we’re talking about emotive subjects we need to be entirely driven by facts as they are.”

Mr Tetchner, who said he’d worked as an engineering consultant for 30 years, replied that through his work he had experience and knowledge of the materials used.

He added: “I am emotive with it, when I’ve seen children suffer.

“When the son of an old colleague of mine has died from it, I will go public if it helps to get other people to look in greater depth at these possible causes.”

Another objector, Geraldine Turver, told the committee that the pitches were an environmental hazard and that the council would be contributing to the climate crisis by laying them.

However, councillors were later told that concerns around 3G could not be considered when deciding whether or not to approve the application, as they fall outside of planning regulations.

Nick Beckett, the planning agent speaking on behalf of the council, told the meeting: “9,000 games (in West Yorkshire) on grass pitches were cancelled last year.

“If grass surface pitches were pursued here it would not meet the year-round sporting demand of east Leeds residents.

“Sport England’s position outlines that artificial grass pitches are recognised as a durable, safe and year-round playing surface, able to withstand intensive use in all kinds of weather.

“It means more people can benefit from the social and health benefits of physical activity.”

Mr Beckett said the site would be run by a not-for-profit organisation and that any extra money generated would be reinvested in leisure facilities across Leeds.

But the council came under fire from objectors for a lack of consultation.

Resident Patricia Maltby said: “I’ve lived in area since 1991. I know a lot of people locally. A lot of people haven’t had flyers through. People didn’t know anything about it.

“There’s been no opportunity for anyone to discuss concerns. There’s been no meetings and we should have been consulted about it.”

The council claimed it had held consultation meetings over Zoom, but blamed a lack of face-to-face events on Covid restrictions.

But Conservative councillor Alan Lamb said: “I don’t think the excuse of the pandemic washes at all.

“We’re sat here in August 2022, not December 2020 (when the application was submitted). There were plenty of opportunities for engagement.

“At the moment this feels like it’s something that’s being done to the community, rather than with it.”

Councillors voted to delay making a decision on the plan until a later date, to allow for more consultation to take place and more information to be gathered.