Finance

This section gathers in one place the financial picture supporting the Phase 1 recommendation: indicative cost envelopes for each of the three shortlisted approaches, a comparative cross-site summary, the funding strategy and realistic capital-stack scenarios, the per-site operating model and revenue picture, precedent cost benchmarks, and key cost risks. The non-financial comparison sits in § 5, § 6, and § 7; the financial detail is gathered here so the main narrative sections aren't repeatedly broken by figures.

The figures throughout this section are working estimates. Phase 2 contractor quotes for ground preparation, covering, equipment relocation, arches fit-out, and (when a site is identified) car-park conversion are scheduled but not yet in. Ranges reflect that uncertainty; none of the figures below is a contracted price. They are intended to give the council and community an order-of-magnitude picture for envelope sizing and funding strategy, anchored against the published precedent cost spread of £650/m² (StreetDome, Haderslev) → ~£780/m² (Lynch Family, Cambridge MA) → £5,230/m² (F51, Folkestone) documented in Appendix F.

Headline financial picture — Phase 1 envelope per shortlisted approach (working estimates pending Phase 2 contractor quotes) and the size of the assembled funding portfolio.

F.1 How to read these numbers

F.2 Indicative Phase 1 / 2 / 3 cost envelopes

Per-site working estimates by phase, derived from the project's per-site cost frameworks. All figures bracketed for uncertainty; ranges reflect the spread between conservative and ambitious specification of each line.

Figure F.2a — Phase 1 cost envelopes by approach. Bars show the working-estimate range; precise figures firm up on Phase 2 contractor quotes. The Askew Road bar sits in the middle of the three, but delivers the highest proportion of covered skating area (see F.3).

F.2.1 Askew Road — lead recommendation

Askew Road all-phases envelope: £412–828k for the full skatepark + seven-arch programme over five years. On a per-skating-m² basis (842 m²) Phase 1 lands at approximately £290–555/m² — in the StreetDome (£650/m²) band, well below the Lynch Family mid-point and roughly an order of magnitude below the F51 ceiling. See F.6 for the precedent benchmark.

F.2.2 Gateshead Stadium — alternative

Stadium all-phases envelope: £650k–1.3M. On a per-skating-m² basis (4,883 m²) Phase 1 lands at approximately £82–160/m² for the ground prep and partial covering combined — significantly below the precedent spread. The headline cost-per-m² is favourable; the trade-off is the proportion of the site that is covered (40–50% in Phase 1 vs 60–80% at Askew Road), which the survey evidence identifies as the community's number-one priority.

F.2.3 Car Park Conversion — illustrative (site TBC)

Ranges below are wider than the other two options because they are site-independent estimates — the building, structural condition, ceiling height, column grid, and existing-floor surface all materially affect cost and are not known until the council identifies a specific candidate. A structural condition survey on the chosen building is the gating step before these figures firm up.

Car Park all-phases envelope: £400–898k. The headline argument on cost is the absence of a covering structure (every level below the roof deck is covered already), which on comparable scale to Askew Road or Stadium typically saves £100k–£400k vs new-build covering. That saving is partially offset by surface-preparation uncertainty on an existing slab and by potential structural / ventilation upgrades that won't be known until a specific building is surveyed.

F.3 Comparative cost summary

Side-by-side cost picture across the three approaches. Ordered with the lead recommendation first; the column ordering matches § 6.

On total Phase 1 envelope the Car Park option is nominally the cheapest, Askew Road the mid-point, and Stadium the highest. Adjusted for what each option delivers against community priority (coverage of the skating area, central location, complete-feeling Phase 1), Askew Road carries the strongest cost-effectiveness argument: it meets the most of the priority list at the smallest absolute outlay. The Car Park option matches Askew Road on cost but depends on a building being identified and surveyed before the figures firm up. Stadium carries the largest absolute outlay but also the largest footprint and the strongest co-location revenue.

F.4 Funding strategy

Recommended delivery model: Gateshead Council as lead applicant for all major capital funding, with Shred The North as community partner and delivery consultancy. This model maximises funding access (councils are eligible for all major capital sources), simplifies organisational requirements (no charity or CIC status required for the capital ask), and uses an approach proven across the DCMS Multi-Sport Grassroots Facilities Programme, Sport England Place Partnerships, CIL, Section 106, and local Capital Programme routes.

F.4.1 Available funding sources by tier

Twenty-three active funding sources have been identified across national, regional, and local tiers. The five largest by realistic Phase 1 target are named below; the full list, eligibility detail, application timelines and contact routes are held in the project's detailed funding-options analysis.

Other named sources in the working list include the National Lottery Community Fund (up to £55k), Garfield Weston Foundation (£50–150k), Better Youth Spaces Fund (variable; £30.5M available in 2026), Community Foundation Tyne & Wear / Northumberland funds, Aviva Community Fund, Sported / Postcode Lottery, and crowdfunding (Spacehive) for community-led enhancement. Skateboard GB provides letters of support and design guidance and should be engaged at the outset of any application.

F.4.2 Realistic Phase 1 funding scenarios

Three scenarios drawn from the project's detailed funding-options analysis, reflecting different assumptions about hit-rate across the application portfolio. All three sit within the Askew Road Phase 1 envelope (£242–468k); the Achievable and Optimal scenarios additionally cover Phase 2 or Phase 2 + 3.

Figure F.4a — The three funding scenarios shown as a stacked capital stack. No single source carries more than ~35% of the Conservative scenario; diversification limits exposure to any one funder's decision.

Two observations from this picture. First, the Conservative scenario alone fully funds the Askew Road Phase 1 envelope — the recommendation is well within reach on a deliberately cautious read of the funding landscape, before any of the optional upside is counted. Second, the application portfolio is structurally diversified: no single source carries more than ~35% of the Conservative scenario, which limits exposure to any one funder's decision.

A note on how to read these totals. The Achievable and Optimal scenarios 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) — and as the Conservative scenario shows, falling short of the higher figures is not in itself a blocker to delivery.

F.4.3 Application lead

Application leadership splits cleanly along source type. Major capital is council-led, with Shred The North providing the community-engagement evidence and Options Study material. Community enhancement grants and crowdfunding are STN-led if appropriate organisational structure is in place. Partnership applications sit between the two and depend on funder requirements per round. On this basis, each of the 23 funding sources in the wider portfolio is assigned a specific lead — council, Shred The North, or joint.

F.5 Operating model & revenue projections

Each shortlisted approach carries a distinct operating model. The revenue picture below is annual; figures are working estimates and will firm up as the operating arrangements move from framework to agreement.

F.5.1 Askew Road — arches lease and ancillary revenue

The seven adjacent railway arches, used services-only (the arches are too shallow for skating), enable a CIC-style operating model in which the council owns the skating asset and Shred The North (or a successor CIC) operates the supporting infrastructure on a lease basis. Revenue is split between rentable arches (café, skate shop) and bookable arches (events space). The Spit & Sawdust (Cardiff) and Onboard Sheffield precedents show this operating model running profitably or at break-even at comparable scale, with ancillary revenue cross-subsidising the welcoming-but- undermonetised skating side.

Note. The seven arches are owned by Network Rail. This revenue is therefore an optional future upside, contingent on a separate arrangement with Network Rail to occupy the arches — it is not assumed in the core scheme's viability. The skatepark itself is free-standing on the council-owned plot and does not rely on Network Rail. The figures below show the upside if arch activation proceeds.

Ancillary revenue of £10–28k/year is not the heart of the financial case — the heart is the public-good outcome on community-priority objectives. It is, however, a material cross-subsidy that meaningfully reduces the council's operating commitment over time, and it gives the site a route to invest in Phases 2 and 3 from revenue rather than from a second capital ask.

F.5.2 Gateshead Stadium — co-location revenue

The Stadium operating model is fundamentally different: the council builds and owns the skating infrastructure; the skatepark is free at point of use; but the surrounding stadium amenities (café, gym, sports halls, events programme) capture the footfall the skatepark brings. The skatepark is the activation; the stadium captures the revenue. Estimates below are derived from a working- assumption of 15,000–30,000 annual skatepark visits and current stadium pricing.

The Stadium revenue number is roughly an order of magnitude larger than Askew Road's arches revenue. Two things to keep in mind on that: the Stadium revenue accrues to the stadium operator, not the skatepark / its CIC, so partnership-agreement terms determine how it is shared or recycled into the skatepark; and the headline cost envelope at Stadium is also higher, so net economic position depends on the agreement structure. School programmes (10–20 schools per year at £500/booking = £5–10k), holiday camps, and corporate / team-building bookings are upside not in the table.

F.5.3 Car Park Conversion — revenue picture TBC

Revenue projections for the Car Park option depend on the building chosen (whether a café / events space can be operated within the structure, whether the top deck is accessible for events, whether the location anchors a Quays cultural-quarter programme). The working assumption is somewhere between Askew Road's arches revenue (£10–28k/year) and Stadium's co-location revenue (£60–80k/year), with the upper end achievable if the chosen building can house a café and events programme and sits on a regeneration-area footfall pattern. Firm projections require site identification.

F.6 Precedent cost benchmarks

The eighteen profiles in Appendix F produce a build-cost-per-m² spread that anchors the working estimates above against verified UK and international comparables. The headline spread:

Figure F.6a — Phase 1 cost per skating m² for each 5BOS approach against precedent benchmarks (StreetDome and Lynch Family shown; F51 at £5,230/m² sits well off the right of this scale — see Appendix F for the indoor purpose-built outlier comparator). All three 5BOS options sit at or below the StreetDome floor on a per-m² basis.

Each of the three 5BOS options lands toward the lower end of this spread:

• Askew Road — Phase 1 at approximately £290–555/m² sits in the StreetDome band; the shared funding stack and council-CIC operating model also match StreetDome's. Most directly: StreetDome + Spit & Sawdust + Onboard Sheffield as operating-model precedents.
• Stadium — Phase 1 ground-prep + partial covering at approximately £82–160/m² is well below the StreetDome floor, reflecting the scale (4,883 m²) and the partial-rather-than-full covering brief. Multi-sport co-location revenue model: Graystone Manchester + StreetDome.
• Car Park — Phase 1 surface-prep + fit-out at approximately £50–135/m² (single level) reflects the absence of a covering build cost; closest UK precedent for cost picture is HTC One @ Selfridges (London, 2014), and closest UK precedent for the council-partnership pathway is The Source Park (Hastings, 2016).

F.7 Sensitivity & key cost risks

The largest sources of cost uncertainty per option, with direction of travel if each materialises:

Askew Road

• Covering specification. Tensile / canopy at £200–400/m² for 500–670 m² gives the £100–200k range above. A more architecturally ambitious specification could move this to £250–300k; a lighter functional canopy could land at £75–120k. Betongpark's concept design (16 May 2026, see § 6.1.3) shows a steel canopy as the working assumption; contractor quotes against that specification will pin this.
• Arches plumbing. The Phase 1 toilet fit-out (Arch 2), and any later café arch, share a water and drainage connection assumed on reasonable runs from existing supply; the £15–30k allowance could roughly double if a longer connection or upgraded supply is needed.
• Network Rail use-agreement. The seven arches are Network Rail-owned. Phase 1 fits out two of them (Arch 2 toilets, Arch 6 storage), which needs an early use-agreement with Network Rail — a programme risk for those two arches, though the skatepark structure itself is free-standing and independent of Network Rail. The further commercial arches (café, shop, events) are an optional later-phase upside under a separate arrangement (see § F.5.1).
• Residential noise mitigation. If the site visit's noise assessment surfaces a need for substantive acoustic treatment, £15–40k could be added to Phase 1 amenities.

Gateshead Stadium

• Ground preparation across 4,883 m². The largest single Phase 1 line (£150–300k) is also the most sensitive to existing-ground condition. If sub-base remediation is needed, this could move toward £350k.
• Covering scope. The 40–50% partial-cover assumption (£200–400k) is brief-dependent: a council decision to push toward 60% Phase 1 coverage adds £100–200k; a decision to defer covering entirely to Phase 2 saves £200–400k Phase 1 but compromises the community priority.
• Partnership-agreement terms with the stadium operator. Not a build-cost risk, but determines how much of the £33,700–£129,600 annual revenue accrues to the skatepark / its CIC vs the stadium.

Car Park Conversion

• Structural survey. The biggest single unknown. A clean survey with good slab condition keeps Phase 1 at the low end of the £150–413k range; significant remedial structural work could push it well above the upper end and would likely change the recommendation.
• Floor surface. If the existing slab can take a thin overlay or grind / seal, the £50–200k surface- prep line lands at the lower end. If full concrete overlay is needed, it lands at the upper end — closer to the Askew Road or Stadium ground-prep cost.
• Ventilation and acoustics. Building-dependent. Could be a £10–30k upgrade line or a substantially larger acoustic-treatment programme depending on enclosure type and adjacent uses.
• Quays masterplan implications. If the chosen building has a defined demolition horizon within the Quays masterplan, the project becomes an interim-use case with different funding routes (more weighted to creative-reuse and cultural-programming sources than capital sport infrastructure).

F.8 What firms up at Phase 2

The following inputs would firm up this section in a Phase 2 — if the council progresses the project and expressly commissions the next stage:

• Contractor quotes for ground preparation, covering, equipment relocation, arches fit-out, and (when a site is identified) car-park conversion. These replace the bracketed working estimates above with quoted figures.
• Supplier concept design: Askew Road integrated (Betongpark, 16 May 2026); Stadium and Car Park concepts not commissioned within the interim study window and would be next-step deliverables if either is selected. Contractor quotes against the Betongpark specification will pin the Askew Road covering scope and equipment-layout cost.
• Council's choice of candidate car park building — not a direct cost input but unblocks the car-park structural survey. (Askew Road ownership is confirmed: council-owned plot, Network Rail-owned arches; the skatepark structure does not rely on Network Rail, and Phase 1's amenity arches need an early Network Rail use-agreement.)
• Planning pre-applications on each shortlisted approach. Confirms no substantive planning constraint and therefore no contingency uplift for change-of-use risk.
• Structural survey on the chosen car park building (only if the council identifies a candidate within the study horizon).
• Operating-agreement framework with the chosen partner (Stadium operations team if Stadium is selected; arches landlord and CIC structure if Askew Road; building owner if Car Park). Pins the revenue picture in F.5.

When these inputs land, the body of this section is the place where the report changes the most. The framework, the comparative reading in F.3, and the recommendation in § 7 should hold; the specific figures will firm up.