Equal Opportunities Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Official Report 283KB pdf

---

Inclusive Play

Item 2 is consideration of written evidence that we have received from local authorities on inclusive play park provision. Members have received a paper from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerks, which summarises the written evidence. Do members have any comments on the paper?

As colleagues will remember, I raised the issue at our planning day last summer. I am delighted that a questionnaire was sent out, to which we have received responses. I have a few questions on the information that we have received.

First, we received responses from 25 of the 32 local authorities. I was disappointed that not all 32 authorities responded. I would like to have a list of the local authorities that did not respond, because that is not fully clear from the paper; I would be keen to go back to them to ask them once again for information.

Secondly, it would be useful if the local authorities would tell us their definition of an inclusive play area. Although East Renfrewshire Council stated that all its play areas are fully inclusive, facilities in some other local authorities may be fully inclusive but are not defined as such. Before we take anything forward, should we decide to do so, it would be useful to establish an exact definition.

I found the paper extremely interesting. Like Stuart McMillan, I was concerned that not all the councils responded. That might indicate that they do not have any good news to tell us, so perhaps those that did not respond are the ones that we should focus on.

Could we consider what happens before play areas are put in place? In some respects, this is a planning issue and it presupposes that the necessary area has been set aside for play and recreation. There are various ways in which we can do that. We can have play streets, although I do not know how friendly they would be to people with a disability. We need to build inclusive play into local plans and make such areas an integral part of housing developments, not least because—I will try, and fail, to be diplomatic—there is ample evidence that it is the unfortunate, low-lying, boggy bits of ground that are prone to flooding that are set aside. It is about the big sell by the developer in relation to play areas. Identifying areas in the local plan should be part of planning procedures.

I can see the attraction of having designated play areas for disabled children, but I think that we would want to be inclusive. I am taken by the bits of equipment that are for all abilities. Clearly, there are people who need to be specifically catered for, but I hope that such provision would take place alongside provision for able-bodied children.

The planning—getting it right at the outset—is very important.

The first thing that struck me about the information that we received was that there was no way of benchmarking the quality of the provision. For example, the paper mentions the fantastic play area at Palacerigg country park in Coatbridge. However, I know lots of areas in North Lanarkshire where that kind of play area is not provided. It would be useful to know whether councils have gone out and classed—or given some sort of award to—play areas in their control that we would consider to be of standard and inclusive.

The impression that I get while driving around is that South Lanarkshire has upgraded lots of its play areas whereas North Lanarkshire has some way to go. The information that we have at the moment does not give us an impression of benchmarking.

John Finnie mentioned developers. I do not know how it works throughout the country, but my understanding is that when small play areas are included in estates, the developers walk away and the local authorities do not adopt those play areas. Play areas in private sale areas quite often fall into disrepair and are not upgraded. Perhaps we could look at the picture throughout the country.

I endorse what Stuart McMillan said. I, too, was surprised that seven local authorities did not respond. I am doing some arithmetic to get a vague idea of which local authorities did not respond. I thought that if a local authority received a communication from the Equal Opportunities Committee, some sort of reply would be given. It is not only disappointing, but slightly troubling. I think that at your direction, convener, the clerk should be asked to frame a letter to the non-responsive authorities to ask when they are going to get their act together and respond. There is an important point of principle involved.

The second matter is much more technical; I do not know whether Douglas Thornton can assist us on this. Nine local authorities stated that in designing new play areas they considered the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That act was repealed and succeeded by the Equality Act 2010. I am curious about who is doing what now, and whether they are following policy under the 2010 act. Has there been a change in policy? Is there a difference in the direction that is given under the more recent act?

I do not know the answer to that question.

I am just curious. I think that we would want some reassurance that whatever the councils are doing, they are bearing in mind the 2010 act.

I echo Annabel Goldie’s point: it is curious that nine councils thought to mention that while the others did not. Why did those nine councils think that they had to refer to it, given that some of them have said that they have signed up to all the policies?

I do not know how the committee will proceed on the matter, but two examples stand out. Dundee City Council said that it considered not just ability and disability, but socioeconomic differences too. That is an interesting example of what it is doing with play areas.

The other example is South Ayrshire Council. I have spoken in other committees about how disability is defined and how badges are put on it. South Ayrshire’s approach was interesting, as it does not like to use badges to state that a play area is only for disabled children, and therefore all the play equipment is for every child. We could get more information on that approach—for example, on how expensive it is. The council says that it “strives to” include all children, but what does that mean? Can other councils use that as best practice if we are to go forward on the issue?

Before I bring in Dennis Robertson, I want to respond to Annabel Goldie’s query. There has been no change in policy: the DDA is replicated in the 2010 act, so councils will be complying with it and will know what it is.

Thank you, convener—that was my point.

Sorry.

That is quite okay. Staying with that issue, does it fit into the general duties or the specific duties that councils need to take up? With regard to Clare Adamson’s point about benchmarking, it is probably better to have national rather than local authority benchmarking. I am not quite sure who would do that; perhaps it would be the Equality and Human Rights Commission or a similar body. The last thing that I think we would want is a situation in which good practice is not being replicated in a particular area but the local authority has benchmarked it to be adequate. We need to be careful there.

Thank you for that. I found the paper really interesting, and I am glad that it has come before the committee. However, I found some elements of the evidence almost evasive. The councils gave us information, but not an awful lot. I was disappointed that not all the local authorities responded.

The point about benchmarking is really good. If we leave it up to local authorities to benchmark, we could have 32 different benchmarks. We would really need to have one generic benchmark that could be adapted for each authority.

I wondered what communication local authorities have had with local groups or people who would want to use the facilities. Did the councils talk to local groups and ask children with whatever type of disability what equipment they needed, and how councils could adapt existing equipment so that a play area would become inclusive and children with disabilities could use it? That certainly did not come across in reading the paper. We can reply to the local authorities or write to the local authorities that did not contact us and ask what they are doing, but I wondered whether it would be possible to write to groups and ask them what they would want to have in a benchmark play area that would include everyone.

14:15

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities might have a locus in the matter regarding all 32 local authorities, so it may be worth writing to it in addition to the other bodies.

That is a good suggestion.

Should we establish whether there is a statutory requirement to provide play facilities? Perhaps I should know whether there is. Often if there is no statutory requirement for something, it is one of the first things to be dropped from consideration.

As far as I am aware, there is no statutory requirement to provide inclusive play parks.

Is there a statutory requirement to provide play parks full stop, I wonder?

In the early years framework, there is a vision to improve children’s quality of life through play. That is all that I am aware of.

Those are fine words, but they are not statute. That vision should form part of the single outcome agreements and, as the convener said, others contribute towards it. In my area, the matter has recently been put out to an arm’s-length organisation. Similarly, community groups are increasingly involved because it is challenging for local authorities. It is expensive to replace equipment and there are financial advantages to some community groups being involved, so local authority money will often be used for that.

We need to be clear what requirement exists. Like Siobhan McMahon, I was impressed with the situation in Dundee, where much thought seems to have gone into where replacements and money are directed.

The point about the statutory requirement is interesting. In my local authority area, if a mix of private and social rented housing is being built, an agreement is reached that a play area must be included as part of that development. However, although one of the conditions for planning permission for another, wholly private, housing development in my council ward was that the developer build a play area, the facility has fallen into disrepair and the council has no authority to tell the developer that they must replace it.

Recently, residents from the development came to me, told me that the play area was run down and asked what could be done. The local authority cannot force the developer to rebuild it and the developer has said that, if the residents want another play area, they will have to pay for it themselves.

There is an agreement when the developer gets planning permission, but there seems to be no continuing statutory requirement.

There is evidence from around the country of factoring difficulties associated with not only play areas but the maintenance of grounds. The local authorities will, on occasion, take on the developers, but that presupposes that there is a benchmark of what is acceptable. I can think of one area in my council ward where the play equipment is extremely modest. It is a stony football pitch and a couple of wee bits of play equipment. It is not of the standard that the local authority would have installed, that is for sure.

Convener, the point that you raise is interesting. My understanding was that the grant of planning permission for residential development can, as we are all aware, be couched in numerous conditions that bind the developer or builder to comply with them before the sale of the houses. However, unless there is a specific agreement that the local authority will adopt a road, footpath or play area, such a facility normally simply ends up in the shared ownership of all the house owners with the resultant liability for them to contribute to the cost of its renewal.

If there is concern about the matter—I can well understand why there might be, from the example that we heard—is the answer for the local authority to deal with the issue at the development stage? At that point, the authority has a hold and can say to the developer that they will not get planning permission or be allowed to do anything unless they create a play area to a certain standard, in which case the local authority will take it over. The crunch point exists—it is the grant of planning permission.

Yes, the crunch point comes at the beginning of the process. If the committee agrees, we could write to the Government to ask, if the provision of play areas by developers is not a statutory requirement, whether it will consider making it a statutory requirement, given the Government’s work on early years and early intervention and its focus on play and health.

We cannot act retrospectively, but we can ensure that a new statute is inclusive. That is the whole point of the discussion. It is about not just building in play areas but making them inclusive. I wonder whether there is a duty on local authorities to make play areas inclusive, regardless of what is in statute.

That is a good point.

There might be an opportunity to do something short of legislation. Planning advice is issued centrally and can be robust. My local authority has had difficulties when companies that had maintenance contracts have not performed or have gone out of business. The issue is where the sanctions lie. Annabel Goldie was right to say that the issue needs to be dealt with at the beginning of the process. That could be done through planning advice. There is advice on play areas and play streets, but it could be made more robust.

Are members happy for us to write to COSLA and the Scottish Government to ask whether there is a statutory requirement to provide inclusive play areas and, if there is no such requirement, whether consideration should be given to the issue? We will also write to the local authorities that did not respond to the survey, to ask about their provision.

I mentioned the option short of a statutory requirement because it could be put into effect much more quickly. Advice could be issued quickly. Perhaps the two options can be considered in combination.

We can put that in our letter.

I suggested that we contact groups that might use inclusive play areas, to ask what equipment they need, what is best for them and what they think about their local play provision. Do members want to do that?

That would be useful.

There is also the issue to do with the definition. What constitutes an inclusive play area?

We can deal with that in the letter to the Government.

Would it be worth asking local authorities or COSLA about the definition?

We could perhaps ask local authorities what definition they are using and ask the Government what definition they should be using.

Where did the definition come from that the committee used when it wrote to local authorities?

It came from a discussion during the business planning day—I was not there. You would not have been there, either.

No, I was not there. Okay.

Some councils mentioned the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I want to know why the equality duties are considered by some councils and not others. If there is a requirement on us to provide disabled access to everything, I cannot believe that play parks are not included. Councils are using different definitions and we will get clarification on that from the Government, but why did councils mention the DDA?

Yes, now that the DDA has been succeeded by the Equality Act 2010.

To be fair to local authorities, in the grand scheme of things play parks are probably not that high on the agenda. The information that we have received shows that there is massive disparity between local authorities on this service provision and differences in understanding of the legislation that is being used. I am sure that the committee shares my view that this is not about trying to get the boot stuck in to local authorities. There is obviously an issue across the country. From the committee’s point of view, it would be useful to try to add to the clarity and the service provision across the country.

Thanks for that. Before we move to item 3, I welcome our observer in the public gallery.