Greenwich council looks set next week to agree the closure or downgrade of four of the borough’s five staffed adventure playgrounds. The decision itself and the process to reach it are both deeply flawed. Our statement is below as well as how you can act.
In December 2025, London Play published an in-depth statement setting out our concerns about proposals from the Royal Borough of Greenwich to close or downgrade four of the borough’s five staffed adventure playgrounds. That statement remains available here:
https://londonplay.org.uk/our_news/london-play-statement-on-proposals-for-greenwich-staffed-adventure-playgrounds/
Since then, the council has published its decision report ahead of the Cabinet meeting. Based on the information now in the public domain, we are issuing this updated position to highlight several significant concerns that remain unaddressed.
- A consultation was held, but its findings appear to have been overlooked
While a public consultation took place, the decision report does not meaningfully engage with its core message: that staffed adventure play is qualitatively different from unsupervised play provision. This distinction, consistently raised by children, families, playworkers and experts, is not reflected in the proposals now before Cabinet.
- Managed decline is being used to justify further cuts
The report places weight on declining usage without acknowledging the impact of long-term underinvestment, reduced staffing and limited opening hours. Using the effects of service decline as justification for further cuts risks embedding a cycle of deterioration rather than addressing underlying causes.
- The qualitative value of staffed adventure play is not reflected in the decision
The proposals treat unstaffed playgrounds, MUGAs and general youth or community spaces as interchangeable alternatives to staffed adventure playgrounds. This is not supported by evidence or practice. Supervised adventure play provides diverse, challenging, inclusive and child-led play opportunities not offered elsewhere with safeguarding, inclusion, independence and trusted relationships that cannot be replicated in unstaffed environments.
- A wider precedent for London and beyond
Proceeding in this way risks setting a precedent for other boroughs, signalling that staffed adventure play can be dismantled despite clear evidence of its value. This has implications for London’s play infrastructure and undermines the city’s long-standing reputation as a place that values children’s play, including its status as a global centre of adventure play.
- A contradiction with national policy direction
These developments come at a time when national policy is moving in the opposite direction. This includes the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Play, the Commission on Play and the newly published National Youth Strategy, which emphasises safe spaces, trusted adults and belonging for young people.
What London Play has done – and is seeking to do
London Play has shared a detailed briefing with Cabinet members ahead of the meeting, setting out these concerns and urging a pause to allow proper consideration of the consultation evidence. We have also made clear our willingness to meet with councillors and officers to discuss the findings in more detail and to support a constructive, evidence-led approach to decision-making.
What you can do
A template letter for use by anyone who lives, works, or grew up in Greenwich, or simply cares about children’s play anywhere in London can be downloaded below and sent to relevant councillors, MPs or other decision makers before 28 January. A list of cabinet members and their email addresses is also below
What we are calling for
London Play urges the Royal Borough of Greenwich to:
- pause or defer the current decision
- recognise staffed adventure play as a distinct and irreplaceable service
- engage meaningfully with children, families and play experts before any changes are implemented
Decisions about children’s play provision should reflect its full social, developmental and preventative value, not just headline usage figures.
