Faraday Road 3G Pitch: Environment Agency Urges Refusal

The Environment Agency has objected to West Berkshire Council’s plan for a full-size 3G football pitch at Faraday Road in Newbury. It has recommended that planning permission is refused.

Its objection is about flood risk. The agency says the council’s flood risk assessment does not show whether the new pitch would make flooding worse elsewhere. (Environment Agency response, 3 September 2026)

The objection has held up the decision. The council’s own deadline for deciding application 26/01699/REG3 was Wednesday 7 October. On 8 October the planning register still read “Awaiting decision”. It now shows a further consultation period running to Thursday 15 October. (Planning register, important dates)

The concern that sank the first version has been settled. In March the council pulled the pitch from its earlier application after Natural England raised the risk of microplastics reaching the River Kennet. Natural England now says it has no objection, provided the new drainage and filtration are secured by planning conditions.

Why the Environment Agency objected

The pitch would replace the existing grass at the ground, which drains towards the River Kennet and sits close to the Kennet and Avon Canal. The agency’s letter makes three main points:

• The flood risk assessment says, at section 2.8.1, that existing ground levels will not change. The agency says the council’s own drawings show the pitch being flattened and levelled, which would alter ground levels on the site.
• The assessment gives no design flood level for the site. Without it, the agency says, the effect on the pitch and the amount of flood storage that would need replacing are unknown.
• The figures do not line up. Every value on the topographical survey is around 9 metres, while the flood levels for the site are around 74 metres.

The agency also said that flood storage should be replaced “level for level”, slice by slice, up to a 1-in-100 flood with an allowance for climate change. It said swapping like volume for like volume would not protect against the largest floods.

To lift its objection, it wants a revised flood risk assessment. It said it would aim to respond within 21 days of being consulted again.

What the council’s consultants said back

The council’s pitch designer, Sports Labs of Livingston, replied by email on 23 September. (Response to EA objection)

Its points were:

• the consultant who wrote the flood risk assessment believes the requested details are already covered in it
• the same information went in with last year’s application, and the same Environment Agency adviser was satisfied with it then
• the pitch itself is not in flood zone 3; only the car park and hardstanding to the west are, and those are not being altered
• the ground is being reshaped, not raised, so that the pitch falls one way, towards the east, as FIFA requires for synthetic pitches
• the highest point of the finished pitch, on its west edge, will be lower than the highest point of the pitch today, at the centre spot

It put the mismatch in levels down to the topographical survey, which it said was done to a local grid and is hard to compare with Ordnance Datum figures.

There is no second response from the Environment Agency on the register yet, and nothing to say whether it has accepted that reply.

What everyone else said

Every other consultee on the register either supports the plan or does not object.

Natural England said it was “satisfied that our previous concerns have been adequately addressed” on microplastics. It pointed to a treatment train of source control, filtration and a planted swale, plus a maintenance and monitoring regime.

The Canal and River Trust was more cautious. It noted the consultants’ figure that the first stages remove 80% of microplastic particles down to 22 microns, “meaning a proportion of microplastics could still pass through” before the final stage.

What residents and clubs said

The register lists 12 public comments: 8 in support and 4 objections. (Planning register, comments)

Supporters include three clubs and the group that has campaigned for the ground:

• Newbury Town Football Club wrote of “the chronic shortage of football pitches in the Newbury area, a challenge we face every week”.
• Newbury Community Football Group said it had campaigned for more than 10 years. It pointed to a 2018 petition for a 3G pitch at the ground with 2,675 verified signatures, and said the council’s Playing Pitch Strategy shows West Berkshire is up to 8 full-size 3G pitches short.
• CSA 07 Football Club put the shortage at at least 10 all-weather pitches. It said Newbury College sports students currently travel to Wantage, about 15 miles north, for practical training.
• Procision Football Club said there are no FA-approved 3G pitches in the Newbury area that can host fixtures.

The two shortage figures come from the clubs, not from the council, and they differ.

The objections are mostly about how the application was drawn up rather than the pitch itself:

• One says the site and location plans break the national validation rules, for example by leaving out the access road and the rest of the council-owned ground.
• A neighbouring landowner argues the application is invalid because the changing-room containers and two stands sit outside it.
• One objector says they do not oppose a 3G pitch, but want one joined-up plan for the whole ground.
• A Clay Hill resident asked planners to consider a new report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Microplastics. It calls for a ban on intentionally added microplastics in artificial grass, which the resident says could affect the pitch’s lifespan.

The council’s design statement confirms the turf would be filled with SBR rubber crumb and sand. (Design and access statement)

Where this leaves the ground

The floodlights were dealt with separately. They were approved in March under 25/02139/REG3, and work to install them began in the week of 10 August.

The 3G pitch is the second half of the plan. The council first described it as a £1.25 million investment in September 2025. The application papers do not give a cost. We covered what the scheme includes, and why the first version was pulled, when the new application went in.

What it means for you

• There is no decision yet. The register lists the case officer as the expected decision level, so this is likely to be decided by officers rather than at a committee meeting.
• You can still comment. The latest consultation runs to 15 October, and comments go through the application page.
• If it is approved, the proposed hours are 8am to 10pm on weekdays and 8am to 8pm at weekends.
• The flood question decides it. If the Environment Agency keeps its objection, the council will have to weigh it against the support from clubs and other consultees.

For other planning decisions around the town, see our Newbury planning news page.