Hundreds of playgrounds set to close

13 Apr

Research undertaken by the Association of Play Industries has uncovered the extent to which local authorities across the country have been closing children’s playgrounds.

This new research revealed that between 2014/15 and 2015/16 local authorities across England closed 214 children’s playgrounds, and when asked about future plans they admitted their aim to close a further 234.

These closures come at a time when childhood obesity and wellbeing are high on the Government’s agenda.

Commenting Mark Hardy, Chairman of the API said: “With increasing childhood obesity and the health benefits of activity and play well known, now is not the time for community playgrounds to be closing. This action goes against the Government’s clear intention to get children more active and needs to be stopped as quickly as possible. Our survey revealed a 37% cut in Government funding to local authorities.”

Their report published today, ‘Nowhere to Play’, shows that £100 million could reverse the decline and get us back on track to increase the number of playgrounds available to children across the country. We are also realistic in realising in this period of austerity that direct government support may simply not be available and therefore urge government to support reinstatement of funding from the Big Lottery.

“We know that money is tight for councils across the country, but we can’t just stand by and watch as children’s playgrounds close. We are calling on the Government to halt this decline and invest in the next wave of playgrounds to ensure our children have access to free play and activity,” adds Hardy.

 

—– END —-

 

 

 

EDITORS NOTES A Freedom of Information Act request to all councils, carried out by the Association of Play Industries, revealed the following number of playground closures:

  • 2014/15: 112
  • 2015/16: 102
  • The request also asked for future plans to close playgrounds and revealed the following number of playgrounds earmarked for closure:
  • 2016/17: 80
  • 2017/18: 103
  • 2018/19: 51
  • Figures for 2017/18 and 2018/19 do not include information from over a third of councils questioned as they had yet to make plans for this time.

The full report ‘Nowhere to Play’ is attached and will be available online Thursday 13th April 2017 here http://www.api-play.org/news/nowhere2play-campaign

BBC news story flagrantly manipulates statistics on school accident claims

7 Apr

Somehow doesn’t this just fit the steady erosion of our liberal culture? thanks Tim for blowing the whistle and alerting us.

Rethinking Childhood

A major news story on the BBC website this morning uses false comparisons and basic errors to create a highly misleading picture about the sums paid out for accident claims in schools. Far from revealing a ‘claims culture’, the figures actually show that payouts make up a tiny proportion of education budgets, and are not on the rise.

Screengrab BBC News home page 7 April 2017 with school payout story circled

View original post 827 more words

Common Sense: Common play

8 Feb

For a long time I feel I have been ambiguous about my own personal views of children’s play and play places. I feel now is the time for me to come clean. Nothing revolutionary or surprising, more, I hope a confirmation of what I have said publicly and privately over the past few years.

Primarily it will be a collection of my own observations about different places where we encourage, or would like to encourage children to play. I hope you will agree that it is holistic, equally embracing different opportunities, their benefits and problems, without being in any way a play fundamentalist.

After more than 30 years working in this sector and after Chairing the writing of the Playground Safety Guidelines in 1992 with Dave Renshaw at the National Children’s Play and Recreation Unit and then Managing Risk in Play provision with Tim Gill, Sandra Melville and the Play Safety Forum from 2000 to 2008, as well as participating in the writing of the European Standard between 1990 and 2000 and being involved in the Children’s Play Policy Forum from its inception, I feel the time has come for me to give my own very personal views about the different sorts of play that we offer children and the way in which I believe they should be complimentary.

What I would like to do is to go through each of the above forms of play provision and give my own views about them.

Broadly speaking they fall into several different categories:

  • Adventure Playgrounds, sometimes referred to as open access play, ideally involving self build structures, loose parts and playworkers.
  • Natural Play (as if all play were not natural) which involves a setting made up largely of Natural elements such as tree trunks, boulders, landscape, sand and water.
  • Conventional Playgrounds in public spaces, which range from Kit, Fence and Carpet (or KFC, thank you Helen Woolley!) to imaginative places which can include natural elements as well.
  • School Playgrounds again ranging typically from fitness trails to loose parts and, rarely, sand and water
  • Public realm, in pedestrian streets and squares cheek by jowl with adult public usage such as cafes, shopping etc. Sadly currently this is rare, but I hope a growing tendency for play.

These are what I believe constitute the main stream and backbone of play provision, though there are others such as after school clubs, large Pay and Play parks and Play Barns, which range from supervised facilities, large and exciting outdoor play and inflatables to indoor soft play, but I will not be discussing these here.

What I would like to do is to go through each of the above forms of play provision and give my own views about them.

First, Adventure Playgrounds.

attitude

By which I mean supervised playgrounds that are generally open just as long as there are playworkers there to supervise them. They are very much self-created, with and without the children and parents that use them. To my knowledge, they usually have a register of regular participants, with volunteers to help, who are often the parents of children using the playground. Normally they comprise both an indoor play area with creative materials, loose parts (eg scrap materials and items that children can manipulate and play with) and seating areas and outdoor areas that usually have one or two large wooden structures created by playworkers, who have experience of building such items, with the help of children. Ideally the structures are supposed to be temporary and capable of modification by the children that use them, but in my experience they rarely get modified on a regular basis. The “Elements” form another important part of the Adventure Playground offering, comprising sand and water play and a fire pit. Generally speaking the materials used on Adventure playgrounds are “found” and ideally free of charge. They were a natural succession to the post war bomb sites that children loved and used as playgrounds immediately after the war.

I have one or two misgivings about adventure playgrounds. The first is that they rarely live up to the claims that are made for the movement. Children rarely actually make the structures on which the playgrounds are based, most structures lasting several generations of use (a generation being the time that children use these playgrounds, typically perhaps 7 years) without significant development. These structures are often a fulfilment of a playworkers dream place to play and as such are often brilliant, but they are not usually self built by children!

Secondly I have misgivings about the claims of “Playwork”, which seems to me to have an inherent contradiction. If play is defined as the activity of children that is freely chosen and intrinsically motivated (as set out in the Playwork Principles), why is there a need for playworkers to supervise and participate in their play activity? and should such activity be truly the only experience of play or even considered to be the best experience of play as is sometimes implied by the Playwork movement? I think that this is probably a weakness in this definition of play rather than invalidating the role of Playworkers. But I do think that such play offerings are limited and can only offer a partial solution to children’s play needs.

My final concern about Adventure Playgrounds is the logistical impossibility of their being universally available to all children. The numbers that would be required and the Playworkers required to staff them could only be the result of a complete change in this Government’s or indeed the last Government’s policy, not just to recognise the importance of play but seriously embrace only this specific aspect of it, even if it were to be agreed as the desirable outcome for children. The Capital cost of doing this would, I believe be in excess of a billion pounds and probably several billion and that is before the revenue implications.

fire pit

So, having said all that, I do believe that Adventure playgrounds do offer one of the best experiences that a child can have in play. I do believe that the presence of adults within a child’s play environment adds a dimension to the play experience allowing a child a different sort of freedom to that which they enjoy when playing on their own, indeed the presence of adults is often a stated preference of children. In addition Adventure Playgrounds encourage a creative freedom, enabling greater risk within a social context than can be found elsewhere. To me the encouragement of greater self awareness and self potential is at the root of real education and fulfilment in later life, quite apart from the thrill of activity for its own sake. So I am an advocate, even a passionate advocate for adventure playgrounds but only as one element within the play offering that should be made to children.

An adventure playground in Hackney

My second is “Natural” Play.

img_1268

One has to begin with the word “Natural”, which sort of sadly implies that any other play is “un-natural”, which is clearly not the case, nor is it the intention of most natural play advocates. However the meaning is indistinct and varies from encouraging children to engage with nature, through using only natural elements such as tree trunks and boulders, to inserting “natural” objects into a conventional playground. It has really suffered because it became a clichéd response to the Playbuilder programme before anyone had really worked out the implications on maintenance or a requirement for compliance with Standards. Thus we even reached a point where fibreglass boulders were being supplied in order to comply with Standards and at the same time meet the design expectations of Playbuilder programme. This programme has, sadly resulted in the “natural” elements now being removed from many playgrounds. The gestural insertion of so called “natural” elements into Playbuilder playgrounds to obtain Government funding seems to me to have been ignorant and cynical and has seriously set back the natural play movement.

fil443

To me it is so obvious that encouraging children to engage with nature is a wonderful thing. I only have to look out of my window in Swanage to watch children playing in the sand and waves on Swanage beach or letting children loose in wooded public landscapes for this to be apparent. Of course we should provide every opportunity for children to experience nature, to lose their fear of the unknown, insects, animals, remote places, but it may be impossible for cultural, geographical or economic reasons to make this offering to all children, nor would it be desirable, if we could, to limit their experience to this monoculture of play. And even if we could, we would have to embark on another massive piece of education both for the designers as well as the providers.

Third the Conventional Playground in the park.

stockwell-tale-of-woe-feb-08

I remember as a child enjoying the old Jungle Gym, as one who suffers from vertigo, the sense of satisfaction, from reaching the top, particularly when there was that extra tower in the centre. Sitting looking around and down at the world from above adults and children. I mention this because this would almost certainly be considered boring and unimaginative today and, as far as I know, is no longer offered for today’s modern playground.

The conventional playground in parks is perhaps the most controversial sort of playground within the non-commercial members of our sector. Sometimes there seems to me to be a reluctance by some within the play sector to buy commercially made play products at all! Not to find a “Natural” or “found” or “self made” alternative product is somehow an admission of failure for such people. In my view this is very sad. Conventional playgrounds are hugely varied from wonderful landscaped places including standard products, natural products, sand and water play, in fact almost every facet of play imaginable to really dreadful formulaic products with maximum activities for minimum money placed on a dead flat sea of rubber, set within a cage of fencing, with no reference to location, risk or creativity and everything in between!

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I thought we made huge progress with the Playbuilder programme and the ten principles in Play England’s Design for Play publication, particularly the Golden Rule:

“a successful play space is a place in its own right, specially designed for its location, in such a way as to provide as much play value as possible”

In implementing that programme we made four steps forward, but sadly since the programme ended and we have a Government that denies the existence of play we have taken three steps back again. As I said in my last blog “Success of Government investment in Play” I do believe that we would have been better off being less coercive at that time and more persuasive, which might have resulted in our only taking three steps forward, but only one back!

Modular structure

Of course one of the strengths of this form of play is that it requires principally capital funding and very little revenue, but I think more important is what these playgrounds can potentially and quite often succeed in offering, making quite clear demarcation of areas specifically reserved for children within the general context of the park and offering stimulating and creative play for children at a far more geographically universal level.

Fourth School Playgrounds. Traditionally schools have recognised the need for play and play facilities within their playgrounds, although their understanding of the role of play within a child’s education is very mixed. Typically within a school playground the facilities offered are a trim trail around the perimeter, which seem to me singularly inappropriate to their needs at playtime or lunch break. At these times the playgrounds come under intense use, with upwards of 20 to 200 children playing simultaneously. Combined with this children need a full range of play experiences beyond simply that of a trim trail, which is both very specific in its offering and also limited in the numbers that can use it any one time.

Ver 0.28N

Ver 0.28N

Recently a number of developments have really extended the way schools could, and in my opinion should, be using their playgrounds. Two of them are based on the principles of “loose parts”. The first, Scapstore Playpod is a brilliant scheme developed with the Scapstore movement, which combines the use of recycled scrap with a training scheme in Playwork for supervisory staff, the second Snug was conceived by Snug and Outdoor and developed by Sutcliffe Play also based on a loose parts concept. The third development OPAL is very much based around introducing schools to the concepts and ways in which play can enhance the education of young children, giving training in playwork and auditing facilities.

snug3

Interestingly all three of the above systems of play designed for schools have at their heart the importance of risk and the encouragement of children to manage the risks in their lives, but more of this later. Suffice it here to say that this, perhaps is one of the reasons why children return to the class room refreshed, invigorated and ready for more disciplined learning. It is also one of the reasons, why play should be at the heart of the school curriculum instead of in the margins.

So, to my final and Fifth, Public Realm.

fil18577

This I feel is my baby and I am likely to become grumpy and ranting about it. Why is shopping, the most usual time for children to be with their parents, so interminably boring? The sound of children playing is a symptom of a healthy place and community, whereas a place that is silent (apart from the noise of cars!) is a community that is dying or dead (thanks to Brian Cheeseman for that one, but true!). Why are we not planning to bring children back into our streets, squares and public places? We invest hundreds of thousands of pounds to create safe places for bicycles in our streets, why are we not doing this for children’s play?

stuttgart-012-1

If all shopping streets were made into shared space with a maximum speed of 10mph imposed through chicanes, bumps, seats and sleeping children and you added places for socialising, sand pits, a water trickle (NOT the ubiquitous fountains at vast expense and monocultural return!) our communities would be transformed, security and social cohesion increased; just think of the passeggiata in Italy. Why do we not do it?

cropped-fil852.jpg

Actually there are examples few and far between, but they are even fewer than the wonderful playgrounds you occasionally find in parks!

Standards, risk, inclusivity. If my five categories of play were to be ordered successively in vertical columns one after the other as they might be in a matrix, then horizontally running through all of them would be the need to consider Standards, risk and inclusivity. The need for children to have the opportunity to take risks, embrace risk taking and learn how to manage risks I would like to think is no longer a matter for debate. However the appropriate way of doing this is still contentious.

Standards and risk. It is interesting to note that the European standard (and no Brexit here, we simply lose our right to a weighted vote or a final say) is really only applicable to conventional playgrounds. Adventure Playgrounds and school playgrounds are supervised and so specifically excluded from the remit of the CEN standard. Natural playgrounds by their very definition of being natural and not man modified must be outside the scope of the standard and public realm can hardly be considered as a playground, it is after all the entire public realm.

As you will all be aware by now, I am not trained in playwork and therefore only speak from a perspective of common sense, but it seems to me that at the root of all education must be the encouragement of children to take risks; physical, emotional and social. All creativity involves risk taking and all self-discovery and honesty depend on a person’s capacity to take risks.

Obviously there are elements of the Standard that are useful in considering some types of risk in the places where children are encouraged to play, but fundamentally they are all far better addressed through Risk Benefit Assessment (RBA) than the rigid application of standards.

Inclusivity. Like standards and risk this is something that should be considered for any playground, in whatever context. For designers familiar with this territory, it will be unconscious second nature, for others they will need to be reminded. In my view two things need to be remembered when thinking about inclusivity. First the aim should be to cater for all levels of physical ability from disabled to dexterous and well coordinated. Neither end of the spectrum should be omitted. And secondly all children need and enjoy risk and it may well be that the disadvantaged need and enjoy it more than the able bodied.

So, to my conclusions.

First I believe that play is fundamental to the wellbeing, development and enjoyment of children.

Second that the greater the variety of play experiences we can offer children the better.

Third that all the above types and circumstances of play for children should form part of the vocabulary of play.

Fourth that the opportunity to take and manage risk should be considered and included in all places where children play

Fifth Inclusivity should not be an optional extra, it should be second nature and embrace all levels of ability and not just the disabled.

But finally remember the Golden Rule:

 “a successful play space is a place in its own right, specially designed for its location, in such a way as to provide as much play value as possible” Genius Loci

What’s so bad about a father trying to make the world a more play-friendly place?

30 Oct

I am reblogging this because I think that much of it is relevant to so many people with children and grandchildren. While I am sure that most of my friends would sign up to this without question, it is still comforting to know that others have similar views!

Rethinking Childhood

This weekend’s New York Times has a major feature and profile on Mike Lanza and his Playborhood campaign to make neighbourhoods more play-friendly. And it’s whipping up a storm. In this piece, I give my take on the campaign and my response to the key criticisms.

First, some background. Lanza’s rallying cry is “turn your neighborhood into a place for play” – a goal he has been pursuing for at least nine years. His book and blog are first and foremost a set of practical advice, ideas and case studies for achieving that goal.

Lanza first got into the issue because of his concerns as a dad bringing up three children. What drives him is, in large part, the contrast between his own typically free-range 70s childhood and the highly constrained lives of most children today. I share his view that this change marks a profound loss.

Lanza’s campaign is…

View original post 2,078 more words

A small but potentially significant win for risk benefit assessment

22 Aug

Why try to be clever when Tim has done all the work!

Rethinking Childhood

How often do you hear that the ‘health and safety culture’ cannot be resisted? That fear of litigation makes people unwilling to accept the slightest possibility of accidents or injuries? The implication is that risk benefit assessment (RBA) – the balanced approach to risk management that I and others have developed – is a waste of time.

My response – that RBA is making a difference, and that the legal benchmark is to be reasonable, not to eliminate all risk – is sometimes met with scepticism or cynicism. “That may be true in theory,” the argument goes. “But in practice, as soon as a child is hurt and a claim comes in, the lawyers and the insurers just pay out, no matter what the merits of the case.”

This is why I am pleased to share the news that the charity Hackney Play Association has successfully fought off a claim…

View original post 164 more words

Success of Government investment in Play: Pathfinder Wisbech

14 Jul

Never let it be said that there were no benefits from first the lottery funding then the Play Builder and Pathfinder programme investment amounting in all to over £500 Million. Don’t let it even be said that the net benefit did not exceed the issues that arose through the process, speed and product of its realisation.

Last week I visited the only Pathfinder playground that was designed and produced by Sutcliffe Play with the local community and Cambridge District Council at Wisbech, Cambridgeshire. If ever there was an example of what we can do as part of the commercial sector when given the opportunity to be responsible for design and realisation in conjunction with the local community, this must be one of the best. I could name others such as Chatsworth

Chatsworth Paulsgrove Waterplay 2

and Paulsgrove in Portsmouth.

There are others of which I would be equally proud, where we interpreted the concepts of other designers, such as Cutsyke

Cuttsykesnug3

and Snug

But this is really about the playground at Wisbech. An open access playground that is opened at dawn and closed at dusk by a local resident. Including two purpose built barges for toilet and changing facilities and indoor play space, Seen here through a self modified structure:

Modification

and American Swing,

American Swing

cable ways, self build modular structure, sand and water play and a fire pit

fire pit

all set in a playful landscape. My only criticism is the requirement for a fence, for which I can see no reason, being set in a green with little traffic at its edges.

So why do I think that it has been so successful. There wasn’t a child on the playground when we visited in the morning during term time, but all the signs of heavy use were apparent, worn out turf, charcoal around the fire pit (locked in the absence of Supervision); worn paths; a sign saying no play session today due to lack of staff (tragic, but clearly hanging on in there!).

fence notice

But what pleased me most were the signs of ownership and modification that were to be seen everywhere and the lack of vandalism (I don’t consider graffiti to be vandalism, any more than a broken bone is a serious Injury! I remember the obscene Graffiti that I painted on the ceiling of my adolescent attic).

graffiti wall

The addition of a boat that someone had picked up from somewhere. Hidden dens, bike tracks on the mounds outside the entrance to the playground.

IMG_1215

While I was there I questioned a young man walking his dog on the green. He lived locally he said, the playground was fantastically heavily used. Occasionally there were scuffles, to his knowledge, never serious or out of hand. It was viewed as a real asset by the community, melting pot of race, nationality and religion in a very deprived area of Cambridgeshire.

If ever there was a justification for the investment programme, this must surely be it. There were many problems of making such a huge investment in so short a period, coercion to meet design standards that were not understood, resulting in extraordinary results such as Plastic rocks in the name of natural play, along with attempts to make all natural features comply with standards instead of using Risk Benefit Analysis to consider and justify minor irregularities.

Tragically with the change in policy of the current Government many of the people who so successfully drove this programme are no longer in place and there has been a tendency for playground design to return to the default Kit, Fence and Carpet (KFC) that preceded this investment, natural play being the biggest casualty. Happily all is not lost and many providers do have a better understanding than they did before the investment programme and there some playgrounds being built now that would come up to the ten principles underlying the golden rule of Genius Loci

My dreams?

First that this Government would recognise the contribution that play makes to the wellbeing, health and development of children in playgrounds such as Wisbech, in schools and in nature.

Second that the criteria for designing and purchasing playgrounds were based more closely on the 10 principles put forward in the Play England Design guide, rather than the reductionist approach of cost play points.

Third that those companies with a real knowledge of design, landscape, place making and children’s play be given more opportunities to create imaginative places for children to play, before this country is either covered in KFCs or the ubiquitous programmed fountains!

An alert and call for action – a new Standard threat to play provision

5 Jul

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I would recommend this blog to all who are involved in children’s play. However time is getting short. We would really welcome all those with an interest to respond urgently to Matthew Marshall at BSi in line with Bernard’s request.

Bernard Spiegal

This is an alert. An alert to all those – across Europe and wider – where European play equipment and surfacing standards are held, or will be held, to apply.   A new Standard is being proposed, one that will further undermine play provision.

Proposed change

The particular proposed change I focus on here (there are others) aims to introduce a requirement for onsite testing of playground surfaces, in particular, synthetic ones, for example, rubber.

Negative consequences

The proposed changes – designated (prEN 1176-1:2016 (E)) – if implemented, will have an entirely negative effect on play provision, piling on significant additional costs or, in an effort to avoid additional costs, providers may well feel compelled to close or further dumb down existing provision.

To demonstrate the scale of the potential increase in costs, one local authority has calculated that an additional annual amount of £400,000 would be required if the proposed…

View original post 482 more words