Play Space Assessment outline to the GLA standard

A play space assessment outline for a London scheme starts with one number and works outwards from it. That number is child yield. Until you know how many children the scheme is expected to house, split by age band, you cannot state a quantum of playable space, you cannot test whether the layout delivers it, and you cannot answer the officer's first question.

London Plan Policy S4 applies to development proposals for ten or more dwellings, which must make provision for play and informal recreation based on the expected child population, with at least 10 m² of playable space per child. Everything below hangs off that sentence.

Section one: child yield and its inputs

Set out the calculation rather than the answer. The yield depends on the mix of unit sizes, the tenure split and the density of the surrounding area, and all three are inputs a reviewer will want to see.

State the residential schedule by bedroom count and tenure. Apply the yield figures from the Mayor's population yield methodology to each cell of that schedule. Then present the output as a table split into the three age bands the policy works with: under five, five to 11, and 12 and over. Show the arithmetic in the document, because an officer who cannot reproduce your figure will substitute their own.

Two traps here. Affordable and social rented family housing generates a higher child yield than private units of the same size, so a tenure change during the application can move the requirement upward. And a scheme that reduces its three-bedroom count at reserved matters stage will produce a different figure from the one in the outline consent, which needs flagging rather than hiding.

Section two: the quantum derived from yield

Multiply the total child population by 10 m² and state the requirement in square metres. One line, clearly labelled, with the yield table immediately above it.

Then set out what the scheme provides, broken down by each piece of space, and reconcile the two figures. If there is a shortfall, say so in this section rather than burying it later. A reconciliation table that shows a deficit and explains how off-site provision or a financial contribution makes it up is a stronger document than one that quietly redefines a communal courtyard as playable space.

Be careful about what counts. Playable space is space designed and safe for children to play in, which excludes car parking courts, vehicle routes, narrow residual strips beside boundaries, steeply graded land, and private balconies. Amenity space that doubles as playable space can count where it does function for play, and you have to argue that rather than assert it.

Section three: age group provision and distribution

The three age bands have different geographies, and this is where most schemes fail.

Doorstep space for under-fives must be on the site and within sight of homes, with a clear route that does not cross a vehicle route. For the older bands, existing off-site provision can contribute, and if you rely on it you need to evidence it: name the park or playground, give the walking distance along an actual route rather than a straight line, describe what it contains, and say whether its capacity can absorb additional users.

Include a plan with the catchment circles drawn and the routes marked. It settles more arguments than three pages of text.

Section four: quality, play value and inclusive design

Quantum without quality gets refused on design grounds even when the arithmetic works. This section should describe play value rather than list equipment.

Cover the sensory and physical range on offer, natural play elements such as planting, water, mounding and loose materials, seating for carers within sight of play, shade and shelter, surfacing, and lighting where the space will be used after dark. Deal with inclusive access properly: level or gently graded routes, equipment that a wheelchair user can reach and use, and quiet areas for children who find busy play spaces difficult. Equipment specified to BS EN 1176 and surfacing to BS EN 1177 should be stated as a commitment, with the detail reserved by condition.

Also describe overlooking and passive supervision, because a play space with no windows facing it will not be used, whatever it contains.

Section five: the boundary with amenity and open space

A Play Space Assessment sits alongside, rather than inside, the wider open space case. Keep the documents separate and cross-reference them.

Private amenity space for individual flats, communal amenity space for a block, playable space under Policy S4, and public open space provision under local plan policy are four different requirements measured in four different ways. Double-counting a single area against all four is the most common reason a submission comes back. Where the local plan also sets an open space standard per dwelling or per person, run that calculation in an Open Space Assessment and show in both documents which areas have been counted where.

The landscape drawings have to match. Where the Landscape Strategy shows a lawn and the play assessment counts it as local playable space, the strategy needs to show the play function too.

Section six: presenting the calculation so it survives review

Use one table for the residential schedule, one for the yield, one for the requirement against provision, and one drawing for distribution. Nothing else. Reviewers check four things in this order: the unit mix matches the drawings, the yield method is the Mayor's, the multiplication is right, and the areas counted are shown on a plan.

Illustrative example: a 60-unit scheme with 18 family units might generate a child population in the mid-twenties across the three bands, giving a requirement of a few hundred square metres, of which the under-five doorstep element has to sit on the site itself. The point of the example is the structure, not the figures. Run your own yield calculation, because a single change of tenure moves the answer.

Section seven: securing delivery and long-term maintenance

Finish with the mechanism, because an assessment that does not say how the space is delivered and kept leaves the officer to invent a condition.

1. State which areas are delivered in which phase, tied to the phasing plan.
2. Offer a condition requiring detailed play space design, equipment specification and surfacing before the relevant phase begins.
3. Set out the management arrangement: adoption by the council, a management company, or a resident-controlled body, and who pays.
4. Commit to a maintenance and inspection regime, including post-installation inspection and routine operational inspections.
5. Where any provision is off-site, identify the receiving space and the mechanism, normally a contribution through a section 106 agreement.

Costs belong in the viability evidence rather than here, but the two documents have to agree. If the viability appraisal inputs assume a lower play space cost than the specification you have committed to, someone will notice.

One honest uncertainty: boroughs differ on whether communal roof terraces and podium gardens count as doorstep playable space, and there is no single answer in the London Plan. Ask the borough at pre-application and record the answer in the assessment.

Draft your Play Space Assessment on PlanScope, then check the yield and the areas against the landscape drawings before it goes in. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.