Plans to close three of Greenwich Council’s staffed adventure play centres will go ahead after a challenge to the decision was thrown out – despite councillors being told of pleas from children to keep one of the venues.
Users of the Coldharbour centre in Mottingham said they would feel unsafe without the centre, a scrutiny panel heard after Conservative, Green and independent councillors challenged the decision.
Another attendee suggested that the only centre to remain in its current form was saved because residents said they would not vote Labour if it closed.
Greenwich’s cabinet decided to close the centres after a consultation held over Christmas, but the responses have been kept from public view.
The council insists that it cannot afford to continue providing a service that it says is little-used, as only 1.4 per cent of the borough’s children attend them, while it claims the changes are a “transformation”. Campaigners say that vulnerable children will be affected and that children will be harmed by the loss of supervised play areas.
The centre on the Coldharbour Estate – the second most-used in the borough, the meeting heard – will close and be replaced by a wider community hub, although some youth provision may be provided there. Some 93 per cent of consultation responses supported saving the centre, the meeting heard.
Glyndon adventure play centre in Plumstead is pencilled in for closure, but a voluntary group has expressed interest in taking it over. The centre in Woolwich is to close and be replaced by unstaffed facilities in the Clockhouse community centre.
A centre at the Meridian Estate in west Greenwich will become a staffed “youth hub” as the borough’s play facilities are folded into the wider youth service.
Two sets of councillors – Conservatives Matt Hartley and Roger Tester, and Green councillor Lakshan Saldin and independent Majella Anning – had each called in the decision for further scrutiny.
Megan Myers, who used to attend the Coldharbour centre – known locally as The Course – and now works at a nearby school, said that as children were not represented at the meeting, she would present their views.
She said: “This is what I asked some of the young people, what does Coldharbour adventure play centre mean to you, and what do you feel about the changes? A boy aged ten: the closure means no playtime or freedom. I feel upset, angry and sad. It won’t be as safe if it is a community hub.
“A boy aged ten: I miss the friends I met there. I’d stay in my room all day long.
“Another child, aged 11: it’s a safe place with friends. I wouldn’t know how to trust adults at the community hub. Another child, age 11: The Course feels happy and safe. I’m worried about what will happen when I’m at the park.
“In summary, the children tell us the centre at Coldharbour, brings us safety, play and friends, all supervised by adults they trust.”
Carol Regan, the Coldharbour centre’s manager, called for “an actual, genuine consultation where the children and staff can have their say on our service”, and said that a senior council officer had agreed to talk to children twice but cancelled both meetings.
“You have chosen to keep the Plumstead centre as it is the busiest site, but Coldharbour is the second busiest, and we believe that it also needs saving,” Regan said.
Hartley said the Coldharbour centre played “an absolutely pivotal role on the estate. It is no exaggeration to say it is essential for the people we represent on the estate. There is no other institution on the estate that is more important for people’s life chances.”
“This is an institution that has been going for more than 50 years,” he said. “There are generations of people who have been and sent their children and their grandchildren to the play centre. And the work of the staff in engaging and working with young people on the course is just incredible, and it’s kind of humbling to see.”
Drawing a distinction between unstaffed playgrounds and the staffed play centre, he said: “The nicest playground in the world is not going to support what our staff do for our young people.”
David Monteith, a resident who has worked in youth services elsewhere in London, said campaigners had been treated with “derision, condescension and rudeness”.
He said he had given up expecting the council to change its mind, adding that the original plan was to close all the centres.
“This was so predictable from the moment that Councillor Adel [Khaireh] gave the whole plan away in a council meeting without even realising it,” he said, “To the saving of Plumstead Common after councillors attended a public meeting I chaired, in which I mentioned to much assent from the public that if the council didn’t listen we could take our votes elsewhere, and hey presto – Plumstead was saved. Was it electioneering? I don’t know, but it has made a cynic of me.”
There was no response from councillors to Monteith’s claim.
Anning said it was clear the decision “had been made more than a year ago”.
“The failure to publish numbers of people who objected showed a total lack of transparency,” she said. “Vague terms were used about what a youth or community hub would entail, so residents didn’t even know what they were supposed to be commenting on.
“And the justification that there’s no evidence that adventure play centres help to avoid crime. I wonder if the person who wrote that comment understood that you can’t prove a negative.”
Anthony Okereke, the leader of Greenwich Council, said: “A member of the public talked about the young boy not being able to play. Under the current proposals, that young child will still be able to play in Coldharbour. And I was particularly touched by those comments, because I think our decision here today still enables that to happen.”
He said the council had put forward £1.5 million to a community hub at Coldharbour and that he was “sometimes a bit confused” by the criticism of the proposals, as “the very things that they are asking for through this decision, we are providing”. However, there was no clarity as to what would be provided at Coldharbour, which will be subject to consultation at a later date.
Sandra Bauer, the cabinet member for equality, culture and communities said the consultation collected qualitative rather than quantitative data, which was why “we had a really, really good response”.
The panel consisted of Labour councillors Lauren Dingsdale and Issy Cooke – who represents Plumstead Common, where the centre is being kept – and Conservative Charlie Davis.
It voted to stick with the cabinet’s decision. Davis said there were “significant question marks about the failure to proactively engage with young people at each site”, while Dingsdale, the chair, said that the grounds of the call-in did not cover the difference between play services and youth services, which limited what she could examine and the decision she could make.
The casting vote was with Cooke, who said: “I think we also have had a lot about the delay in the consultation and the uncertainty for young people. I don’t necessarily think that sending it back [to the cabinet] based on those call-in grounds will make any difference to what happens moving forward.
“I think it’s likely to just add a few months to what is already something that’s had a lot of feedback from residents through many different avenues.”
Hartley said after the meeting he could continue to scrutinise the council on the Coldharbour centre: “I am really disappointed that these play centre cuts are being allowed to go ahead, on the basis of a deeply flawed process. Trust in the council has fallen to rock bottom over this – it is a really bad situation and I am astonished they don’t seem to realise just how bad their trust issue has become.”
📩 Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
Comments are closed.