What the Replacement Needs to Be

The survey tested ten potential replacement attributes, asked respondents to rank day-one priorities, surveyed appetite for phased delivery and equipment reuse, gauged tolerance for waiting, and measured the difference a replacement would make. The results are unusually consistent and converge on a clear specification.

Headline community mandate (n=134) — detail in the sections below.

Replacement priorities

Importance ratings on a 1–5 scale (1 = not important, 5 = essential), n=134:

Figure 2.4.3a — Mean importance of ten replacement attributes (n=134, 1–5 scale). The headline finding: town-centre location is the lowest-rated of the ten priorities.

Cover, surface quality, and free use form the top tier — the same bundle 5 Bridges had, with surface quality (the original's one weakness) elevated.

Day-one priorities for a phased Phase 1

Top-3 ranking. The chart shows the count of respondents who placed each option first:

Figure 2.4.3b — Day-one priorities for a phased Phase 1 (first-place rankings; n=134).

Cover is the single most-ranked-first day-one priority by a clear margin, with surface quality second. Free use, equipment range, and access fall behind those two non-negotiables. This is a direct mandate for what § 5 must hold the line on in any phased option.

Delivery preferences

On a phased delivery approach (build a quality covered foundation first, enhance over time):

Figure 2.4.3c — Support for a phased delivery approach (n=134).

80% support phased delivery, with the strict majority explicit that Phase 1 must include cover and a quality surface. This is a strong endorsement of the phased direction explored in § 5.

Reusing the original 5 Bridges equipment

• 54% — Love the idea — it's part of 5 Bridges legacy
• 31% — Fine with it if the equipment is still in good condition
• 10% — I'd prefer all new equipment
• 5% — Don't mind either way

85% are positive about equipment reuse, conditional on condition. This validates the equipment-reuse strand in the brief and the planned condition survey.

Acceptable wait for delivery

Figure 2.4.3d — Acceptable wait for the replacement facility to open (n=134).

58% want a facility open within 12 months; only 16% are willing to wait beyond 12 months for any reason other than getting it right. This puts time pressure on the council to commit to a Phase 1 delivery date, even if the full facility is phased.

Supporting facilities and multi-use

What respondents would value beyond the skate equipment (multi-select):

Multi-use facility (skating + complementary uses):

• 56% — Yes, that sounds great
• 31% — Maybe, depends on what it is
• 12% — No, keep it dedicated to skateboarding
• 1% — Not sure

87% are open to a multi-use facility. The 12% who prefer skate-only typically pair this in free text with concern that scooter or family use crowds out skateboarding. Co-located uses are well supported provided skating remains the primary, undiluted purpose — relevant to the supporting-spaces design across all three shortlisted options in § 6.

A distinction worth drawing: multi-use (skating alongside complementary uses such as a café or events) is separate from multi-discipline sharing. Although skateboarding has always been the primary activity at 5 Bridges, BMX and inline (rollerblading) riders have found the space equally accommodating — the plaza has always operated as a single, shared space, used harmoniously across disciplines rather than split into separate zones. A replacement is expected to carry that shared-use character forward.

The difference a replacement would make

Multi-select, n=134:

Figure 2.4.3e — What respondents say a replacement would deliver (n=134, multi-select).

The dominant outcomes — closely grouped at the top of the chart — form the core of the case made in § 7:

Personal wellbeing follows closely (57% mental health, 53% physical), reinforcing the same case.