Informal Play, Formal Governance

Why councils must rethink how they manage evolving play environments

Across parks, reserves, and public spaces, informal play is rapidly emerging.

• Rope swings tied to trees.

• Mud kitchens built from reclaimed materials.

• Hut-building zones evolving organically in bush edges.

  
  

This is not a negative trend. In fact, it reflects something highly positive—community engagement, creativity, and a return to meaningful, exploratory play.

But it also introduces a critical governance question:

At what point does informal play become a council responsibility?

The Reality Councils Can’t Ignore

There is a growing assumption across the sector that informal or nature-based play sits outside traditional governance frameworks.

It doesn’t.

Once an installation becomes known and tolerated on public land, it enters the realm of governance. 

This is the point where responsibility shifts:

• From unknown → foreseeable risk

• From community activity → managed environment

• From observation → obligation

And this is where many councils are currently exposed.

The Industry Tension: Play Advocacy vs Governance

Modern play philosophy rightly promotes:

• Challenge

• Risk-taking

• Natural environments

• Child-led exploration

Playsafe strongly supports this direction.

However, where the industry is becoming misaligned is in the interpretation of risk-benefit thinking.

In some cases, it is being used to justify the acceptance of hazards that are:

• Foreseeable

• Avoidable

• And well understood

This is where a clear boundary must be drawn.

Risk-benefit thinking supports play. It does not replace compliance where defined equipment or known injury mechanisms exist. 

The Critical Distinction: Risk vs Hazard

A well-managed play environment allows for risk.

But it must actively manage hazards.

Risk (positive):

• Challenge

• Uncertainty

• Learning through experience

Hazard (unacceptable):

• Sharp protrusions

• Entanglement risks

• Unstable structures

• Uncontrolled fall heights

The issue is not that informal play contains risk.

The issue is that many informal environments contain unmanaged hazards.

The Governance Threshold

A recurring misconception is:

“We didn’t install it, so we’re not responsible.”

This is not consistent with accepted governance practice.

Tolerance without assessment may be interpreted as acceptance of risk. 

Once a council:

• Is aware of an installation

• Allows it to remain

• And takes no action

…it has effectively accepted a level of responsibility for that environment.

Where Things Go Wrong

Across multiple jurisdictions, the same governance gaps appear repeatedly:

1. Informal = Exempt

Assuming community-built means outside responsibility.

2. Intended Use vs Actual Use

Assessing what something was meant to be—not how children actually use it.

3. Reactive Management

Waiting for complaints or injuries before acting.

4. Standards Drift

Softening compliance expectations because something is “natural” or “informal”.

5. No Operational Integration

Informal play not included in inspection or maintenance systems.

These are not isolated issues—they are systemic.

The Compliance Boundary Principle

This is one of the most important governance rules:

If a play element functions like defined equipment, the standard applies.

This includes:

• Swings

• Climbers

• Slides

• Moving equipment

For example:

• A tree swing is not just a “natural feature”—it is a swing, with a known injury profile and defined requirements.

• A pallet structure that enables climbing becomes a fall risk, regardless of intent.

Where equipment classification is clear:

👉 Compliance must be the benchmark—not risk acceptance. 

The Risk Profile of Informal Installations

Common hazards observed in informal play environments include:

• Protruding fixings (laceration risk)

• Flexible elements (entanglement/strangulation risk)

• Heavy movable items (crush hazards)

• Unstable structures (collapse risk)

• Climbable elements without fall protection

• Tree swings without impact attenuation

These are not theoretical issues—they are recurring, observable, and preventable.

A Proportionate Way Forward

This is not about removing informal play.

It is about managing it properly.

Effective governance should focus on:

1. Proportionality

Not all informal play requires removal—but all requires assessment.

2. Foreseeability

Assess how environments are actually used—not how they were intended.

3. Severity

Prioritise risks with potential for serious or life-changing injury.

4. Practical Mitigation

Address hazards that are simple and reasonable to fix.

5. Operational Integration

Include informal play in inspection, reporting, and maintenance systems.

Supporting Play Without Losing Control

Informal play and governance are not competing ideas.

They can—and should—coexist.

Councils can:

• Enable community creativity

• Support nature-based play

• Encourage exploration and challenge

While still:

• Managing foreseeable risk

• Applying clear standards boundaries

• Maintaining defensible decision-making

Final Thought

Informal play may emerge spontaneously—but it must be governed deliberately. 

The real risk is not informal play itself.

The real risk is unclear ownership of responsibility once it appears.

📘 Learn More

For councils, asset managers, play advocates and operators navigating this space, the full framework is outlined in:

👉 Informal Play, Formal Governance book

A practical, standards-informed approach to managing informal play environments with clarity and confidence.