Delivery Options Analysis
Beyond site selection, how the facility is delivered is a decision in its own right. Six delivery options have been analysed, spanning the three shortlisted sites and the main alternative approaches (full new build with or without covering, and upgrading an existing park).
Note: The analysis below compares options on the following non-financial terms:
Cost figures, contractor quotes, funding strategies, and revenue projections are in § F Finance, available to council and public alike.
5.1 Option A: Askew Road - Phased with Railway Arches
Ground preparation and higher-coverage build on the 842 m² central site, with the seven adjacent Network Rail-owned arches fitted out in stages to provide toilets, cafe, skate shop, coaching/workshop space, community/events space, storage, and a heritage gallery. The skatepark structure is free-standing and does not rely on Network Rail; the arch fit-out is subject to a use-agreement with Network Rail. Park and Phase 1 arches (toilets, storage) delivered together — subject to an early Network Rail use-agreement; revenue-generating arches in Phase 2; cultural/heritage arches in Phase 3.
5.2 Option B: Gateshead Stadium - Phased Approach
Ground preparation and partial covering over part of the 4,883 m² site, with relocated 5 Bridges equipment populating the covered zone. Further equipment and extended covering added in subsequent phases as funding and demand support it.
5.3 Option C: Car Park Conversion
Adaptive reuse of an existing multi-storey car park — specific site to be identified by the council if this approach is progressed. Surface preparation of existing slabs, relocated 5 Bridges equipment, lighting and ventilation upgrade, safety works. Potential to extend to further levels and an open-air top-deck transition area in later phases.
5.4 Option D: Full New Build Elsewhere, Uncovered
A full new-build skatepark on a site not among the three shortlisted, without any weather cover. This option has the fewest constraints of a greenfield design but delivers none of the covered provision the community has ranked as critical, and typically involves longer lead times for land, planning, and build.
5.5 Option E: Full New Build Elsewhere, Fully Covered
A full new-build skatepark with a full covering structure. This delivers the strongest all-weather provision of any option but at substantially higher build cost (the cost picture sits in § F Finance) and the longest timeline.
5.6 Option F: Existing Park Upgrade
Upgrading one of the existing Gateshead skateparks (subject to Section 3), with or without the addition of covering. This option has the lowest procurement and planning complexity but is constrained by the sites themselves: smaller footprints, peripheral locations, and covering retrofit that is often not straightforward or feasible.
5.7 Comparative Analysis
| Factor | A: Askew Road | B: Stadium | C: Car Park | D: New build (uncovered) | E: New build (covered) | F: Existing upgrade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timeline to Phase 1 | 10–12 months | 12–15 months | 10–12 months from site selection | 18–24 months | 18–24 months | 12–18 months |
| Coverage | 60–80% | 40–50% | 100% | 0% | 100% | Unlikely |
| Location | Most central | Sports hub | Town centre / regeneration area | Varies | Varies | Existing sites (peripheral) |
| Supporting spaces | 7 railway arches | Shared stadium amenities | Within existing structure | None | None | Limited |
| Phase 1 feel | Complete | Sparse relative to scale | Integrated | Complete | Complete | Upgraded |
| Expansion potential | Limited by footprint | Excellent | Multi-level | Varies | Varies | Limited |
| Ownership | Plot: Council; Arches: Network Rail | Council | Council (building TBC) | Varies | Varies | Council |
| Risk level | Medium | Low | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
5.8 Observations from the Comparison
Only Options A, B and C deliver meaningful covered provision within a realistic timeframe. Each wins on a different axis and none dominates outright, so all three progress to full site proposals — with Askew Road currently leading as the recommended option (§ 7).
Why the other three options fall short on covered provision:
How risk differs across the three shortlisted options:
The cost-benefit summary aligning this comparison to community- priority weightings (from § 2) and to the cross-site cost picture is in § F.3 — Comparative cost summary. If the council progresses to a Phase 2, contractor quotes would firm up the bracketed working estimates that section currently carries.