Executive Summary
This is the Phase 1 deliverable of the 5 Bridges Options Study, issued to Gateshead Council and the public on 01 July 2026. It carries the full evidence base gathered to date and a primary recommendation with two evidence-ready alternatives. A defined set of Phase 2 inputs — listed in Outstanding Evidence — Phase 2 Inputs — remains scheduled. The financial picture — cost envelopes per site, funding strategy, and revenue projections — is in § F Finance.
5 Bridges Plaza closed in 2025, ending more than four decades as the North East's only covered skating destination. Skateboarders had ridden its covered banks since they were built in 1979–80, with BMX riders and bladers joining as those sports grew in the decades that followed. So although only its final eighteen years were spent as a formally adopted plaza — the period that cemented its international reputation — the site had in practice served as a skatepark for its entire life. The Options Study answers a single question for Gateshead Council: what should replace it, and how should it be delivered?
Across community engagement (134 survey responses spanning 52 postcode prefixes), policy analysis (four locally-adopted documents and one national strategy), assessment of all nine existing Gateshead skateparks, evaluation of three shortlisted new-site approaches, and eighteen UK and international precedent profiles, the evidence consistently points to a single direction.
The study recommends a phased replacement skatepark at Askew Road as the lead approach, with Gateshead Stadium and a Quays car-park conversion positioned as evidence-ready alternatives.
Key engagement findings
The community survey (closed 27 April 2026, 134 responses) returned unusually consistent findings across all six measures:
The findings support six implications that carry through into the rest of the report:
Full analysis in §2 and the four engagement sub-pages.
Site assessment summary
Existing parks (§ 3)
The nine Gateshead skateparks plus the 5 Bridges equipment condition survey have been assessed against a 100-point evaluation framework. None has covered provision; none is in a town-centre or urban-core location; all are dominated by transition or bowl terrain rather than the plaza / street focus that 5 Bridges was internationally known for. No existing park can serve as a stand-alone replacement. Enhancement of the existing park with the greatest replacement potential (Dunston) is a useful longer-term adjunct but does not constitute the equivalent-or-better replacement that policy (MSGP 39) requires. Site-visit fieldwork will confirm or revise the assessment scoring; the directional finding is unlikely to be overturned.
New-site options (§ 4)
A long-list of approximately 12–15 candidate sites was filtered against four critical requirements to a shortlist of three approaches that are fundamentally different in form:
Gateshead Stadium — council-owned plot within the live sports complex, with substantial scope for Phase 2/3 growth and sports-hub co-location upside.
Askew Road — central plot with authentic urban character already in place. The seven adjacent gated railway arches are too shallow for skating but provide dedicated services-only space (café, toilets, skate shop, coaching, events, storage, heritage gallery) that no other shortlisted site offers.
Car Park Conversion — adaptive reuse of an under-used multi-storey car park (specific building to be identified by the council), with ceiling-height and column-grid constraints on transition features.
The recommendation
Gateshead Council should proceed with development of a phased replacement skatepark at Askew Road. Phase 1 delivers ground preparation, the higher-coverage option (60–80% of the plot), relocated 5 Bridges equipment, and fit-out of two of the seven arches (toilets / amenities and storage / maintenance), subject to an early Network Rail use-agreement. Phase 1 target opening: within 12 months of council approval to proceed.
Across the comparative framework, Askew Road meets the most of the community-priority requirements (centrality, achievable covering, complete-feeling Phase 1, dedicated supporting infrastructure) and unlocks the most of the operational case at a deliverable scale (CIC operating model, ancillary revenue from the arches, worked-up supplier concept design from Betongpark for this site specifically — see § 6.1.3). Stadium and the Quays Car Park approach remain evidence-ready alternatives with explicit conditional triggers set out in § 7.2.
Phase 1 cost & timeline
Phase 1 / 2 / 3 cost envelopes per site, funding strategy with realistic scenarios (Conservative £565k / Achievable £900k / Optimal £1.4M from a portfolio of 23 sources), and revenue projections are in § F Finance. § 7.4 of Recommendations sets out the delivery timeline (10-stage pathway, 12-month Phase 1 target).
These scenario totals are figures to aspire to rather than fixed thresholds.
They may look high, but the project can and will be shaped around whatever funding can realistically be procured (within reason) — falling short of the higher figures is not in itself a blocker to delivery.
Why Askew Road, in five lines
- Most central of the three shortlisted sites. Survey evidence permits but does not require centrality; Askew Road delivers it without sacrificing quality.
- Highest achievable coverage percentage at the smallest footprint — 60–80% is realistic in a way that full coverage of Stadium's 4,883 m² is not.
- Seven adjacent railway arches provide dedicated services-only space for the operating model (café, toilets, shop, coaching, events, storage, heritage gallery) that no other shortlisted site offers.
- Phase 1 will feel complete on day one rather than sparse, satisfying the survey's "Phase 1 must include cover and quality surface" condition behind the 80% phased-delivery mandate.
- The closest precedent set is the strongest: BaySixty6 (London, 28 years), Projekts MCR (Manchester, 21 years), Friedensbrücke (Frankfurt, current 2024 municipal investment), The House Sheffield (skater-owned governance), Spit & Sawdust (Cardiff, CIC + ancillary revenue) all map directly onto components of the Askew Road approach. See Appendix F.
Next steps
From council approval to Phase 1 opening, on a 12-month horizon (full pathway in § 7.4):
- Council in-principle approval to proceed at Askew Road.
- Ownership confirmed — council-owned plot, Network Rail-owned arches; the skatepark structure is free-standing and does not rely on Network Rail. Secure an early Network Rail use-agreement for the Phase 1 amenity arches (toilets, storage); commercial arches optional later.
- Site visit + ground / noise / drainage assessment.
- Betongpark concept design integrated for Askew Road (16 May 2026); equivalent supplier concept work for Stadium / Car Park would be commissioned if either is selected.
- Planning pre-application then full application.
- Funding strategy implementation (see § F.4).
- Community co-design for equipment layout.
- Procurement of ground prep, covering and — subject to the Network Rail use-agreement — Phase 1 arches plumbing contractors.
- Construction.
- Phase 1 opening — Month 11–12.
Caveats and Phase 2 inputs
The recommendation is the Phase 1 finding, supported by the evidence gathered to date — including site visits to Askew Road and Gateshead Stadium in May 2026 and Betongpark's concept design for Askew Road dated 16 May 2026.
A defined set of Phase 2 inputs remains scheduled: planning pre-applications; supplier concept work for the Stadium and Car Park options (not commissioned within the interim study window); contractor quotes to firm up the finance section; the nine existing-parks site visits; candidate car park identification; and follow-up engagement on the survey's youth, women, non-binary and beginner gaps. These are listed in full in Outstanding Evidence — Phase 2 Inputs on the report landing page.
None of these inputs, on the evidence to hand, is expected to overturn the Phase 1 finding — each is a confirmation or refinement step. Should any Phase 2 input materially change the comparative picture, the alternative-recommendation triggers in § 7.2 set out an evidence-based route to pivot to the Stadium or Car Park option.
Phase 2 is not work already under way. It would proceed only if Gateshead Council decides to take the project forward and commissions the next stage — whether with Shred The North or another delivery partner.
How to read the rest of the report
Whether you are a council officer, a member of the skating community, a potential funder or delivery partner, or simply an interested local resident, the rest of the report lays out the evidence in the order it was gathered:
- § 1 Context & Need — legacy of 5 Bridges, impact of the closure, policy alignment (CSUCP, MSGP, Quays Framework, PAS, CYP, Sport England), study brief.
- § 2 Community Mapping & Engagement — methodology, headline findings, four detailed sub-pages, follow-up engagement plan.
- § 3 Existing Parks Assessment — the nine Gateshead parks, why none of them replaces 5 Bridges.
- § 4 New Site Options — the three shortlisted approaches, the comparison matrix, the long-list filter.
- § 5 Delivery Options Analysis — six delivery options compared on non-financial terms.
- § 6 Detailed Site Proposals — full case for each of the three shortlisted approaches.
- § 7 Recommendations — primary recommendation, alternative recommendations, full rationale, next steps.
- Appendix F — Precedent Research — eighteen UK and international precedent profiles, build-cost benchmark, geographic map.