Clacton FC’s plans to extend its facilities to provide an all-weather training pitch have been refused because it would mean the loss of safeguarded open space. Clacton FC wanted to install a fenced all-weather pitch on a parcel of land directly west of the Clacton football club, which is used by residents, including dog walkers.

The football club said it would have benefited the community by improving access to sport and the football club itself. However, councillors have ruled that the proposal would result in the permanent loss of a section of safeguarded open space, contrary to a key planning policy.

The scheme included a 4.5-metre fence as well as use exclusively to Clacton Football Club members and other potential sports users whilst not including the wider public, the planning report said. A planning officer said: “The proposal will bring forward considerable health benefits for its users. A 3G pitch will clearly improve the facilities that Clacton Football Club have on offer and allows for more widespread usage including during wet winter months. Against these benefits, there is clear policy conflict.”

Steve Andrews from Clacton FC said the club, founded in 1892, has around 600 boys, girls, men, and women participating each week in 36 teams plus other initiatives supported by around 75 volunteers. He added that the club is surrounded by the most deprived wards in Essex, and the majority of membership is drawn from these estates and areas.

He said the pitch is needed to protect the grass, and given the combination of more teams, wetter winters, and drier summers, the pitches are never used for training. He said: “We can’t deny that we’re encroaching into a park but it’s a relatively small area and more than offset by the community good the facility will bring to literally hundreds of users every week. It will transform our club, allow us to do even more great work in that area that desperately needs it.”

Councillor Maurice Alexander said: “It’s an awkward one, isn’t it? It’s very difficult, because it plays on two emotions. One, that it would be used by the community as a whole, assuming they can afford to use it. And the other is that we have created these policies to protect ourselves and to keep these places. It’s difficult.”