Concerns about the environmental impact of rubber crumb-based 3G sports pitches has prompted councillors to agree to look into the risks.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillors Mark Earthey and Bridget Fishleigh called for a report on the surface material that has proved popular for all-weather pitches.
The Labour group that runs Brighton and Hove City Council broadly backed the proposal although it said that there were no proven alternatives.
They also suggested that a formal report should consider whether planning policy could influence the choice of materials.
At the meeting of the full council last Thursday (26 March), Councillor Earthey said that rubber crumb was a serious public health issue as well as an environment concern.
In Rottingdean, he said, the issue was becoming emotive after Longhill High School was granted planning permission for a 3G pitch last month.
He said that there was no intention to reverse the planning permissions already given for 3G pitches but rather to “conduct a rational examination” of the potential hazards.
Councillor Earthey, who represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean, said: “Before we go all out to instal more of these pitches in crumb rubber, can we just slow down and take stock?
“There is a growing number of inconvenient truths facing our strategy, based on crumb rubber and we must not feel complacent.”
Councillor Fishleigh, who represents the same ward, brought in a pot of rubber crumb from her son’s football boots.
She said: “They do all know that rubber crumb’s really bad for the environment but what can they do?
“They want to play football all year round so I’m sure in a few years’ time 3G rubber crumb will be something we look back on in horror that we inflicted this atrocity on our planet.”
Labour councillor Theresa Fowler said that she was concerned about microplastics generally because they had been found so widely although she said that there were no alternatives.
Councillor Fowler said: “I’m glad to see that this is firmly on the radar of the various sporting bodies.
“We are closely watching the trials being conducted in Sheffield to test six alternative infill materials, and very much hope that they result in a way forward that supports the level of demand while reducing the environmental impact of 3G pitches.”
Green councillor Kerry Pickett said that exercise was positive but rubber crumb could affect respiratory health and she cited alternatives, including olive pip, coco turf and biochar-enhanced natural turf.
Councillor Pickett said: “This council has a moral obligation to ensure that the residents of this city, and particularly the more vulnerable ones, are protected from potential harm.
“We can’t just rip up the crumb-based pitches that already exist but we can push the government to align legislation with the EU and ban further use of crumb on all new pitches.”
Conservative councillor Ivan Lyons said that his party supported 3G pitches using rubber crumb as part of Boris Johnson’s 2021 grassroots sports policy.
He said: “We note that the experts in this field such as Sport England and the Football Association continue to support 3G pitches for the community benefits while actively exploring viable alternatives to rubber.”
Councillors agreed that a report should explore the environmental and health risks, current government and Sport England policies, alternative materials and how planning could influence materials.
“… it said that there were no proven alternatives.”
Grass?
The Netherlands is already removing artificial pitches that have rubber crumb, and will complete this by 2030.
https://naturalturfalliance.org/2024/04/21/the-netherlands-to-phase-out-artificial-turf-over-health-and-environmental-concerns/#:~:text=The%20Netherlands%20To%20Phase%20Out,Environmental%20Concerns%20%2D%20Natural%20Turf%20Alliance
I listened to the debate around this. The general counterpoint about grass is how quickly it degrades and the comparatively high level of maintenance required; there was another form discussed as well that had the same issue.
Ah yes, the classic “I listened to a debate” summary—very reassuring. Good to know we’ve moved from actual local concerns to a vague rundown of talking points about grass deteriorating. And “another form” with the same issue… really narrowing it down there, Benjamin.
The issue here is that a few people living close to Longhill don’t like the idea of floodlights and more frequent games. Fair enough. But having lost the planning battle they’re running round telling people that 3g pitches give children cancer, despite there being absolutely no evidence to back up this claim. The pitch could be made out the finest organic lambswool, but as long as it had floodlights and supported multiple games a week then same people would find reason to oppose it. Councillors should be giving them the red card.
Not true. Your comment is not accurate.
The NASUWT recently posted concerns as have ECHA on March 26th. Or do you think that links with cancer only occur in the EU and not here?
What we should be debating and researching is an alternative to this Council? Sadly they waste time (and money) on so many pointless vanity projects that tick their own little issue box and completely disregard the things that most people are concerned about in the city. Focus on the state of the roads. The empty shops. Homelessness. Poverty. Lack of housing. Lack of green space. Special needs in schools. Rubbish on ou streets. Parking costs. Not on the materials football pitches are made from.
This was brought to the council by the independents. It is right to discuss these things; whataboutism is not a reason not to.
Wasting time on pointless debates is what this council is good at. And the Independants are masters at that as they have no agenda and sadly therefore no impact. Council leaders love a debate on a pointless topic as it stops them being held to account for being ineffective.
Is that not just poisoning of the well?
Lack of green space and lack of housing…hmmm
Ah yes, the classic “we must discuss it because it was raised,” paired with a preemptive strike against any criticism. Truly a masterclass in pretending context doesn’t matter. By all means, let’s treat every point in isolation—much tidier that way, no inconvenient comparisons getting in the way of the narrative.
What about the toxic old tyre rubber paddling pools babies like to swim in?! Go back to tiles please!
THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE. NATURAL GRASS TURF WITH BIOCHAR AND HYDROROCK SUBSTRATE. Drainage is equal to or better than any 3G pitch. Grass roots remain hydrated even in long dry spells. Biochar helps to draw surface water down into the hydrorock. Grass roots are longer and stronger. Estimates for weekly usage are 53 hrs per week for school age children and 25 hrs per week for adults. No recycling after 10 yrs, no plastics, no PFAS forever chemicals.
That was the alternative method that was discussed that I couldn’t remember! Still requires a higher level of maintenance compared to 3G.