PLAYLINK / Free Play Network

Where children play

- CORRECT -We should have environments in which we live, and children play, which are more imaginative and retain, incorporate natural features.

- MISSING- Location is more important as a determinant of whether it is used for play. Having well designed areas in the wrong location will be just as much "places of woe"

- WRONG - The inference that manufactured equipment is unpopular with children. My original research published in mid 80's by HPFA (2nd edition NPFA) found that children wanted trees/bushes, grass, "hummocky/bumpy" ground. Significant observational and consultation research since has found that they also like, and place a high value on swings, slides, multi-plays, aerial runways, roundabouts, see saws etc. Ignoring these preferences is as wrong as ignoring their desire for the natural environment.

- MISLEADING -
Posted by: Rob Wheway, Play Adviser, CAPT, -1 June 2020, 1-:30

Maintanence is an important issue....

we have a small playground near to where we live, it has a few swings, a small slide and a couple of benches and is enclosed with metal fence and gate.
It's not that exciting as playgounds go, but the council maintain it well, and I think that is what makes it so popular.
The toddlers are taken there and it is safe, the older children meet there and they feel safe, then in the evenings the teenagers hang out there and claim it as their own.
The council check it every day remove any left over bottles etc. and
fix equipment promptly when needed.
It is a simple space, but works well for everyone.


Posted by: cath warwick, after school club supervisor, class of their own, -1 June 2020, 1-:30

Well said Rob!

I think that unfortunately some people have an irrational dislike of manufactured equipment, and want to impose their own aesthetics on children. We should be trying to provide for children on the basis of what works; what looks pretty should be a secondary concern.

There is no question that sites with manufactured equipment can and frequently do provide a good play area, and a good place for children and young people to meet and socialise - as well as satisfying other issues such as providing a destination for children to go to and making it clear that a place is intended for children (my paper "In Praise of Playgrounds" on www.loveparks.org.uk under children lists more roles of play areas).

I do however think that we should do more to link and integrate natural play features with sites with manufactured equipment. In practice many local authorities do not have their own design staff, and will not pay for external designers. I think many local authorities could do with some simple guides and examples of how their sites could have more play value through incorporating mounds, planting copses, etc and linking these to equipment. Although its great to look at examples of "special" sites, I think we need to think through simple measures for the "ordinary" play areas that are often in fairly bleak, treeless grass deserts.
Posted by: Andy Furze, -1 June 2020, 1-:30

Some very valid comments about location and a balance between formal and natural play.

Sometimes we fail to look beyond the immediate play area and embrace a 'more natural'play oppotunity which exists within the same open space / park. Maybe we need to remind ourselves t do this. For example we are enhancing existing play sites which are very popular. We are putting additional equipment, shelters and the like in existing areas, taking down fences and planting trees....however across the open space (Common) is a copse, neglected, nil maintenace but a suitable potential play site...why didn't i recognise this? and what reation would i get from my client!

Maybe this debate about natural and formal will help us think again as to what oppotunities exist and making best use of them...creating from new is often long term so maybe as part of our play strategy we ought to be planting woodland blocks for the next generation.


Posted by: Phil Nicholson, Snr landscape Architect, Bedford Borough Council, -1 June 2020, 1-:28

Continues from previous (sent accidentally before finishing)

MISLEADING - A local authority may have 20-150+ unsupervised play areas. It needs to be made very clear which sites are unsupervised and which are supervised. Unsupervised cost a lot less. There is a real danger that many adequate playgrounds are closed in preference for a few "honeypot" areas - This is happening in a lot of local authorities.

If a child of 7 or 8 years old canoot take a younger sibling to playground then it is unlikely to be serving as a "play" opportunity. It is probably in the wrong location or the roads by it are too busy. Having a better design of play areawill not affect this "woe".

REALITY CHECK - I would love a grass footpath outside my inner-city front door. Sadly I have to put up with boring concrete paving slabs because it would otherwise be a quagmire. Equally in a playground very heavy use of a tree will destroy it, a grassy slope can become unusable. Also a tree takes an awful long time to grow to usable stage. This is all disappointing but inevitable. To take a view "natural good, commercial bad" will limit play opportunities. It is also disengenuous from play consultants who are in the commercial sector themselves.

GOOD PLACES TO PLAY Time and again I have found that regardless of design that where children can play out they have interesting an imaginative play.

What stops them is danger from cars or a lack of social safety "see and be seen". The latter initially surprised me as I had assumed that "secret" or hidden places would be the most popular.

Given a good location
Where there is something like a couple of mature trees/bushes, grass (flat and with changes in levels)possibly with rocky outcrop. These are visually attractive and are well used.
Where a site has swings, slide, multiplay and rotating or rocking items they are equally well used.
Those with a mixture of the above are well used.

Poor maintenance is an issue with either and in my experiece "natural" areas are not thought of as having maintenance issues (other than rubbish removal) consequently becoming overgrown and therefore more vulnerable is not considered. There is insufficient guidance on this over 5,10 and 20 year periods.

NEGLIGENCE - If planks with nails or rotten branches are deliberately left on an unsupervised playground then the next visitng child who has an accident caused by them would have a valid claim for negligence. If a rope swing on a tree branch is left up and a child is killed/maimed falling from it,or when it breaks there would be a valid claim. The expectation of the parent would be that as a designated play place the local authority will have checked it is safe. Different from either of the above where there is no deliberate intention and it has just happened between inspections.

Broken glass in a designated water play area (natural or commercial) is much more likely to be deemed negligence that if it happens in a natural stream or beach.

BOTTLES - Bottles/cans etc make all areas unsightly and dangerous. When are we going to put a deposit on them so they get returned?


Posted by: Rob Wheway, Play Adviser, CAPT, -1 June 2020, 1-:27