Existing Parks Assessment

3.1 Why This Section Matters

Before recommending any new build, this study asks the simpler question: can any existing skatepark in Gateshead adequately replace 5 Bridges — either as-is, or with upgrades? The answer determines whether the study is recommending infrastructure instead of using what exists, or because what exists is insufficient.

3.2 Assessment Methodology

Each park is scored against a 100-point evaluation framework with four weighted categories:

Scoring is consistent across all nine parks, applying the structured 100-point form to the assessor's first-hand knowledge of each site. Total score (out of 100) maps to a classification band:

3.3 Parks Assessed

Nine skateparks across Gateshead borough plus the original 5 Bridges site (for context) are mapped below. The set covers all meaningful existing provision in the borough within realistic travel distance for displaced 5 Bridges users.

Each entry links to its own assessment page. In addition to the nine operating parks in Gateshead, the 5 Bridges equipment itself has been assessed for condition and reuse potential at any new site.

3.4 Assessment Results

The nine existing skateparks have been assessed against the 100-point framework, covering all four scoring categories, drawing on the assessor's first-hand experience of each site. A structured visit with a photographic record is the remaining Phase 2 step.

Visual summary

Both charts draw from the 100-point scoring. Bar colour reflects classification band.

Figure 3.4a — Total assessment score per park (/100), sorted high to low. Bar colour reflects classification band (Premium / Good / Adequate / Poor / Unfit; grey = no data yet).

Figure 3.4b — Weather Protection score per park (/20). Cover is the community's number-one replacement priority (see § 2.5); this chart isolates how each existing park rates on that single attribute.

Three patterns emerge clearly from the assessment:

• None has meaningful covered provision. All nine parks are open-air, uncovered concrete or asphalt with no structure or adjacency providing weather protection. This single attribute is the community's number-one replacement priority — 95% of survey respondents rate replacement essential, with covered provision the dominant value driver.
• Terrain is dominated by transition and bowl features rather than the plaza / street / ledge focus that 5 Bridges was internationally known for. Existing provision serves transition skaters adequately; it does not serve the displaced 5 Bridges community, which is where the 87% "no working alternative" finding from the survey originates.
• None is in a town-centre or urban-core location. The set is distributed across the borough's residential and edge-of-town wards. While 95% of survey respondents are willing to travel further for a higher-quality facility, none of the existing nine provides the higher quality that would justify the travel.

Per-park summary

Brief summary per park, in the order they appear in the table above. Each park's dedicated assessment page (linked above) carries the full 100-point breakdown and a narrative summary.

• Moss Side (NE9, High Fell) — mixed transition + small street, outdoor uncovered; Poor (49/100). Mid-table on assessment — usable but ageing kit, uncovered; strong expansion headroom keeps it a high-priority enhancement candidate, not a replacement.
• Bill Quay (NE10, Pelaw & Heworth) — small transition / quarter-pipe, outdoor uncovered; Poor (42/100). Lowest-scoring of the nine — weakest equipment and weather scores — but with real expansion headroom; high-priority enhancement, not a replacement.
• Birtley (DH3) — transition / bowl, outdoor uncovered; Adequate (55/100). The strongest of the nine and the only Adequate park — best equipment offer, lowest enhancement priority — but still uncovered, so it does not replace 5 Bridges.
• Beacon Lough (NE10, Windy Nook & Whitehills) — mixed transition + small street, outdoor uncovered; Poor (46/100). Weakest location score in the set (peripheral, low-visibility); moderate kit; high-priority enhancement but a poor fit for a flagship covered replacement.
• Dunston (NE11) — mixed transition + small street, outdoor uncovered; Poor (47/100). Thin existing offer but maximum replacement-potential headroom; flagged in § 4.5 as a credible longer-term enhancement candidate.
• Leam Lane (NE10, Wardley & Leam Lane) — small transition, outdoor uncovered; Poor (44/100). Modest, uncovered neighbourhood facility — low across access, kit and cover, though it does have a higher-footfall, visible location; high-priority enhancement, not a replacement.
• Ryton (NE40) — transition / bowl, outdoor uncovered; Poor (52/100). Better-equipped (second-highest kit score) but west-of-borough and uncovered; a valued local facility, not a central replacement.
• Winlaton (NE21, Blaydon) — transition / mini ramp, outdoor uncovered; Poor (51/100). Moderate kit, uncovered, peripheral; maximum replacement-potential headroom keeps it a high-priority enhancement candidate.
• Felling (NE10) — transition / mini ramp, outdoor uncovered; Poor (44/100). Joint-best access in the set but the lowest replacement headroom; high-priority enhancement where physical headroom is the binding constraint.
• 5 Bridges equipment (in council storage) — obstacles from the closed Plaza are confirmed in good condition and suitable for direct reuse at the chosen replacement site.

Each park's assessment page carries a narrative summary, Site Basics, first-hand Site Context and User Observations, and an aerial location view. A photographic record and formal user counts are added through the Phase 2 programme (§ 2.5).

3.5 Expected Finding

The candidate hypothesis entering this section — to be tested, not assumed — was that no existing park in the borough can fully replace 5 Bridges on the criteria the community values. Three lines of evidence converge on this:

• The site-visit assessment (§ 3.4 above) confirms none of the nine has covered provision, none has town-centre location, and all are dominated by transition rather than plaza/street terrain.
• The survey evidence (§ 2) confirms it from the user side: 87% of respondents have not found a suitable alternative within Gateshead since 5 Bridges closed in 2025, and the gaps cited are exactly the bundle — cover, plaza, ledges, atmosphere — that the existing nine do not provide.
• Adopted policy (§ 1.3) anticipates exactly this situation: MSGP Policy 39 only treats loss of recreation provision as acceptable if replaced by equivalent or better provision. The loss is unmitigated, and the existing nine do not constitute equivalent or better.

The site-visit fieldwork confirms this view. The recommendation in § 7 reflects these findings.

3.6 Conclusion

The assessment confirms that no existing park in Gateshead can serve as a stand-alone replacement for 5 Bridges. None has covered provision; none is centrally located; none has the terrain mix, footprint, or replacement potential to absorb the regional user base displaced by the 2025 closure. Enhancement even of the strongest of the nine (Birtley, 55/100) would address part of the displaced demand but would not constitute the equivalent-or-better provision that policy requires and that the survey confirms is needed.

The study therefore proceeds to new-site assessment in § 4. Three new-site approaches have been shortlisted: a phased build at Gateshead Stadium, a central infill at Askew Road with adjacent supporting arches, and a multi-storey car park conversion at a town-centre / Quays building to be identified.

The 5 Bridges equipment itself is confirmed in good condition and suitable for direct reuse at the chosen replacement site (see item 10).