Dear Hadleigh

Concern about the infill material that might be used at the Layham Road Sportsground (LRSG) artificial pitch reflects a growing worldwide concern about microplastic pollution.

After a long consultation period, the European Union is at last banning the use of rubber crumb infill on artificial pitches. This was recommended by the European Chemicals Agency (EHCA) to address the risks to health and the environment, and has been accepted as part of the EU's regulation of intentionally introduced microplastics. It is well documented how the loose rubber crumb (made from old car tyres) leaks into the environment, regardless of containment measures, with devastating consequences.

Hadleigh Town Council's (HTC) partner in the artificial pitch project, the Football Foundation, have not yet offered an alternative infill material. They reportedly told the council they are still conducting tests, and could not say when they would be completed. This is despite alternative infill materials being already available in the UK, and in use with FA approval.

The new 3G pitch will replace existing natural grass playing fields adjacent to Hadleigh United Football Club's ground at Millfield, and close to the River Brett. LRSG was recently designated a 'green space' by HTC's neighbourhood plan committee. The benefit of an artificial 'all-weather' pitch is, it is hoped, fewer training hours lost.

HTC's controversial business case for the project estimated the building cost at around £850,000, with most of the funding (~70%) coming from a grant from the Football Foundation. An estimated minimum of £105,000 of the funding will need to be found from the council's own funds, depending on whether other sources of funding materialize.

The pitch will need to be replaced every 6-10 years at an estimated cost of £250,000 each time from council funds. 

Hadleigh United Football Club is forecast to be the main hirer of the pitch with about 67% of the expected bookings. The cost of one hour's whole pitch hire is estimated to be in the range £50-£80.

HTC passed a resolution last year to say it did not want rubber crumb. However, a stronger resolution making that a contractual requirement was narrowly defeated. That defeat relied on the casting vote of the Chair, Cllr Gordon McLeod, and on a vote from Cllr Rolf Beggerow, the Treasurer of HUFC.

This leaves the council's position ambiguous. It has said it doesn't want rubber crumb, but so far, the council refuses to rule it out.

While the pitch was promoted as 'full-size' in project documents, it later emerged that the identified plot was not large enough for a full-size pitch. This, combined with questions about the infill material, were stated as the reasons for the pitch plans going 'into abeyance' late last year.

While we wait for the Football Foundation to offer an alternative infill, some members of the footballing community press for the pitch to go ahead regardless, while some residents, the local environmental group, and local anglers are concerned about the risk to our river and beyond. Some have raised other concerns about the proposed pitch – the loss of open greenspace, noise and light pollution, the risk of injury, the disposal of old pitches at end of life, the PFA 'forever' chemicals in the pitches, and the overall cost.

Whatever the perceived 'need' for increased training capacity, that need should not be met at the expense of our river, environment and wildlife. 

Hadleigh's is just one case in a massive nationwide pitch-building programme. The Football Foundation aims to fund an additional 1,300 3G pitches by 2030. That's a new pitch every other day somewhere in England for the next 7 years. And 8.2 million square metres of plastic. Unless the Football Foundation offer an alternative, that will need 150,000 tonnes of rubber crumb, plus an annual top-up of 1,300-6,500 tonnes each year, every year. Should we really be using public funds to spread ground-up car tyres into our environment?

Yours,

Huw Roberts

Hadleigh