Thorpe Park Approach: Campaigners furious as east Leeds Premier League-backed sports complex approved

Four floodlit artificial grass pitches will be built on public fields off Thorpe Park Approach, alongside a pavilion cafe and huge car parking space. The city council, which is bringing the Green Park scheme forward with the help of Premier League and Football Association funding, says the development will give disadvantaged kids more chances to play sport.

But objectors from the neighbouring area say it will destroy wildlife in the area, damage the environment and cause heavy traffic and noise pollution. Concerns have also been raised about the rubbercrumb used in 3G pitches, but the sporting authorities insist the material is safe and not hazardous to health.

After a cross-party planning committee unanimously approved the development on Thursday, objector Geraldine Turver shouted at elected members: “You should be appalled with yourselves. Annihilation of your environment – you disgust me and you’ve lost my vote.”

Speaking outside Civic Hall afterwards, other objectors said they were “totally deflated”. Asked about the argument that children in the city would benefit from the new pitches, Ms Turver replied: “Children have got the right to inherit a planet that’s fit to be lived in. Children in other countries have rights. What about the children in Pakistan and East Africa who are starving because of the climate crisis? What about the wildlife, they deserve a home?”

In the meeting itself, several councillors expressed reservations about the scheme, but said their scope to criticise some of its features was limited. For example, the panel was told it was unable to turn down the plans over concerns about the pitch materials and how the rubbercrumb is disposed of, because those issues are regulated by the Environment Agency, rather than the council.

Labour councillor Paul Wray said: “I have a lot of sympathy for the people who are arguing about the environmental impact of this, because around the world there are questions being asked about this material at the moment. The question ultimately comes down to, ‘do we turn down the ability to provide high-quality all-year provision for some of the poorest people in this city, because it doesn’t quite tick every box we’d aspire it to?’. I’ll be voting in favour of this with a very heavy heart, because I don’t think all the environmental concerns around this proposal have been addressed properly.”