New Site Options
4.1 Site Identification
Potential sites were identified through a combination of research on council-owned and publicly-accessible land in and around Gateshead, scene knowledge (places the skating community has historically viewed as viable), and discussions with council estates and planning contacts.
Every identified site was filtered against minimum requirements before full assessment: a workable footprint, realistic path to control (owned or securable), no obvious planning showstopper, and a genuine prospect of delivering covered provision either through new-build or adaptive reuse.
4.2 Assessment Methodology
Shortlisted sites are scored against a 100-point framework designed for new-build and adaptive-reuse skatepark sites:
| Category | Points | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Location & Strategic Fit | 25 | Town-centre proximity, public transport, policy alignment, visibility, catchment |
| Site Characteristics | 25 | Size, ground conditions, access, utilities, adjacent uses |
| Deliverability | 20 | Ownership, planning prospects, environmental constraints, timeline |
| Development Potential | 30 | Covering feasibility, 5 Bridges equipment fit, phasing suitability, expansion, multi-use |
Four critical requirements act as pass/fail thresholds before a site progresses:
A site failing any of these is not viable regardless of its total score.
4.3 Shortlisted Sites
Three sites have been taken through to detailed assessment. Each is fundamentally different in character — a new build on council sports land, a central infill with associated railway arches, and a conversion of existing multi-storey infrastructure — which keeps the shortlist genuinely comparative rather than a single approach dressed up three ways.
4.3.1 Gateshead Stadium
| Area | 4,883 m² |
|---|---|
| Ownership | Gateshead Council |
| Location | Gateshead Stadium sports complex |
| Covering approach | New-build partial cover (~40–50%) |
| Character | Scale, sports-hub integration, phased growth |
Council-owned land within a live sports complex, offering substantial footprint and a natural home for a phased build. The site can deliver a covered zone plus surrounding open-air area, with room for equipment growth over time. Integration with stadium operations (shared amenities, cafe, events) is a secondary opportunity.
Strengths: largest footprint of any option; council-owned; straightforward deliverability; scope for Phase 2/3 growth; compatible adjacent sports use.
Considerations: a Phase 1 build can feel sparse relative to the site size; covering is a new structure (cost and design load); least central of the three sites.
Visited in May 2026, though no photos or footage were collected on the visit; a supplier concept design for Stadium would be a next-step deliverable if this approach is selected. The site is council-owned. Outstanding: full 100-point scoring, exact in-complex location, and partnership terms.
4.3.2 Askew Road
| Area | 842 m² |
|---|---|
| Ownership | Skatepark plot: Gateshead Council. Seven arches: Network Rail. |
| Location | Central Gateshead, off Askew Road |
| Covering approach | New-build free-standing cover, higher percentage possible (60–80%) |
| Character | Central, compact, alongside seven railway arches for supporting services |
A central infill site with authentic urban character, currently featuring graffiti artwork that is itself part of the local visual culture. Adjacent to the site are seven gated railway arches (Network Rail-owned) with existing electricity supply. The skatepark structure is independent of the arches and does not rely on Network Rail. Phase 1 fits out two arches for toilets and storage, which needs an early Network Rail use-agreement; the remaining arches — cafe, skate shop, coaching/workshop space, community/events, and a heritage gallery — are an optional later-phase upside contingent on a further Network Rail arrangement.
Strengths: most central of the three options; higher achievable coverage percentage; adjacent arches offer optional future scope to become a hub; feels complete in Phase 1 at a smaller footprint; authentic character already in place.
Considerations: smaller footprint limits scale and expansion; residential proximity affects operating hours and noise. The skatepark structure is free-standing on the council-owned plot and does not rely on Network Rail; Phase 1 fits out two Network Rail arches for toilets and storage, which needs an early Network Rail use-agreement, and the remaining arches are an optional later-phase upside.
Site visit complete (May 2026); supplier concept design integrated from Betongpark (see § 6.1.3). Ownership is settled: the skatepark plot is council-owned and the seven arches are Network Rail-owned. The skatepark structure is free-standing and does not rely on Network Rail; Phase 1 fits out Arch 2 (toilets) and Arch 6 (storage) subject to an early Network Rail use-agreement, with the other arches an optional later-phase upside. Outstanding: full 100-point scoring and exact dimensions of the seven arches.
4.3.3 Car Park Conversion (site TBC)
| Area | Typically ~3,000 m² per level (multi-level potential) |
|---|---|
| Specific site | To be identified by the council if this option is progressed |
| Location | Any under-used multi-storey car park in or near Gateshead town centre |
| Covering approach | Existing roof — 100% cover on enclosed levels at zero covering build cost |
| Character | Adaptive reuse of existing urban infrastructure |
A fundamentally different proposition to the other two: the building is already built. Existing slabs, columns, roof, lighting conduit, drainage, and ventilation are already in place. The design question is how to adapt what exists rather than how to build something new.
The parallel with 5 Bridges is direct. 5 Bridges worked because it took existing transport infrastructure (the Tyne flyover) and activated it for skateboarding. A multi-storey car park conversion follows exactly the same logic — repurposed urban infrastructure, raw concrete character, built-in shelter.
Under-used car parks sit across Gateshead's town centre and regeneration areas. If the council chooses to progress this option, the next step is identifying a specific candidate site (criteria: enclosed levels, minimum one level of ~3,000 m², realistic path to control, compatible surrounding use). Until a site is chosen, this entry assesses the approach, not a particular building.
Strengths: full covering exists from day one; significant scale; authentic adaptive-reuse character; lowest build envelope (spend shifts from structure to surface and equipment); aligns with town-centre activation and regeneration agendas.
Considerations: ceiling height (typically 2.4–3.0m) limits transition and bowl features on enclosed levels; column grid constrains layout; site selection is a prerequisite; noise reverberation and ventilation require design attention.
The guidelines here apply to any qualifying sheltered car park; selecting the specific building is a council-led step, not a blocker. Once a building is selected, a structural condition survey, floor-to-ceiling and column-grid measurements, current operational status, and a photo record will populate this section. Until then, the entry assesses the approach, not a particular building.
4.4 Comparison Matrix
The three shortlisted approaches are fundamentally different in form, which is the point: a fair comparison shows what each one is genuinely good at and where each one is genuinely constrained, rather than picking the best-of-three on a single metric. The matrix below sets out the non-financial comparison; the financial picture (Phase 1 / 2 / 3 cost breakdowns, contractor quotes, funding stack, revenue projections) is in § F Finance.
| Stadium | Askew Road | Car Park (TBC) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site area | 4,883 m² | 842 m² + 7 arches | ~3,000 m² per level |
| Ownership | Council | Plot: Council · Arches: Network Rail | Council BUILDING TBC |
| Location | Gateshead Stadium sports complex | Central, off Askew Road | Town centre / Quays (council-led selection) |
| Centrality (subjective) | Edge-of-centre sports hub | Most central of the three | Town-centre or Quays |
| Covering approach | New-build partial cover | New-build cover, higher % | Existing roof — 100% on enclosed levels |
| Achievable coverage | 40–50% | 60–80% | 100% (below top deck) |
| Build envelope | New ground prep + new structure | New ground prep + new structure | Surface prep on existing slab; structure exists |
| Phase 1 feel | Risk of feeling sparse on a large site | Complete plaza-feel at smaller footprint | Industrial / adaptive-reuse character |
| Phasing pathway | Equipment density grows over Phase 2/3 | Park + arches activated in stages | Single-level → multi-level → top-deck transition |
| Supporting facilities | Shared with stadium operations | Dedicated, in 7 adjacent arches | Within / adjacent to structure |
| Expansion potential | Substantial on-site | Limited by footprint | Multi-level potential |
| Multi-use compatibility | Strong — sports complex | Strong — arch tenancy mix | Strong — structural adaptation |
| Closest precedent set | StreetDome (Haderslev), Lynch Family (Cambridge MA), Graystone (Manchester) | Friedensbrücke (Frankfurt), BaySixty6 (London), Spit & Sawdust (Cardiff) | HTC One @ Selfridges (London), The Source Park (Hastings) |
| Key dependency | Partnership terms; supplier concept design (next-step deliverable) | Skatepark structure free-standing (no Network Rail dependency); Phase 1 toilet/storage arches need an early Network Rail use-agreement; commercial arches optional later upside; Betongpark concept integrated | Council site identification + structural survey |
| Indicative classification | Strong (75–85) | Strong (75–85) | Strong, with site-dependent variance |
| Critical requirements (4-gate pass/fail) | VISIT DONE · SCORING PENDING | VISIT DONE · SCORING PENDING | BUILDING-DEPENDENT |
| Total 100-pt score | VISIT DONE · SCORING PENDING | VISIT DONE · SCORING PENDING | BUILDING-DEPENDENT |
Each shortlisted approach makes a fundamentally different play:
Reading across the matrix, three things emerge:
- All three pass the minimum-viability bar at assessment stage. None has a fundamental disqualifier (footprint too small to function, location too remote to draw users, covering technically infeasible). The shortlist of three is a real shortlist, not a single option dressed up three ways.
- Each is genuinely differentiated (the three plays above). Pinned next to the survey priorities, no single option dominates all six implications — which is what makes the § 7 recommendation a real judgment call rather than a calculation.
- The pending columns are bounded. The remaining unknowns (site-visit scoring, planning pre-app, supplier design returns, contractor quotes) are all identifiable and time-boxed. None is the kind of structural unknown that could change the shortlist itself.
The non-financial six-option comparison — including the three full new-build / upgrade alternatives that did not shortlist — is set out in § 5.
4.5 Other Sites Considered
Council transparency requires that the shortlist of three is not the full set of options assessed. The desk-research long-list ran to approximately 12–15 sites covering council-owned plots, identified regeneration parcels, and skater-knowledge candidates. The minimum- requirements filter set out in § 4.1 (workable footprint, realistic path to control, no obvious planning showstopper, genuine covering prospect) reduced the long-list to the three shortlisted approaches above. Sites that did not progress fall into recognisable groups, summarised below.
Specific sites assessed and not progressed
| Site | Type | Reason for non-shortlist |
|---|---|---|
| Quarryfield Road | Council-owned plot, peripheral | Footprint usable but location markedly less central than Askew Road and less integrated than Stadium; covering would be a new-build the site does not naturally support; expansion potential limited by adjacent constraints. |
| Saltmeadows Road industrial allocation (MSGP1.4) | B1/B2/B8 employment land | Allocated under MSGP for employment use; D2 leisure use would conflict with the employment-protection policy stack and require a substantive change-of-use case. Available footprint is workable but the planning route is materially harder than for the shortlisted three. |
| Saltwell Park / adjacent open space | Public park, conservation area | Heritage and conservation-area constraints rule out a new-build covered structure at the scale required; Saltwell's role as a major public park serves a different purpose than a specialist skating facility would, and adjacent residential proximity would cap operating hours. |
| Land near Sage / BALTIC (alternative Quayside parcels) | Quayside regeneration parcels | Deliverable in principle, but value, ownership complexity, and alignment with the wider Gateshead Quays development framework (CSUCP QB2) make a stand-alone skatepark on these parcels a poor fit; the QB2 framework's leisure (D2) allocation is better served by the car-park substructure approach at the same Quays scale. |
| Existing-park enhancements (e.g. Dunston) | Upgrade of existing borough park | Treated as Option F in § 5 and assessed in § 3. Not capable of meeting the covered-provision community priority at the Phase 1 step required, but Dunston in particular remains a candidate for a longer-term enhancement programme alongside the 5 Bridges replacement. |
Categories of site that did not progress beyond the filter
- Sites under 600 m² of usable footprint. Below this threshold the equipment density required to recreate the 5 Bridges experience cannot be supported, and Phase 1 would feel sub-scale regardless of site quality. Several long-listed candidates — residual council-owned plots in residential settings — fall into this group.
- Sites with no realistic covering prospect. Where the combination of structure type, planning constraint, and adjacent use rules out a covering approach (new-build or adaptive reuse), the site cannot deliver the community's stated number-one priority. Such sites remain viable for a future open-air provision but not for a 5 Bridges replacement.
- Sites with material ownership or planning complexity. Where control of the land cannot be established within the study's delivery horizon, or where planning route requires a use-class change against an active policy designation, the site falls below the deliverability threshold even where its physical attributes are acceptable.
- Sites scheduled for incompatible development. A small number of long-listed candidates are committed to mixed-use schemes that pre-empt skating use; these were excluded once active development plans were verified.
The full long-list and per-site filtering record is held in the project documentation and available to council estates and planning teams on request.