Site Basics
| Park name | Felling Skatepark |
|---|
| Postcode | NE10 0NE |
|---|
| Address | Felling, Gateshead · NE10 0NE |
|---|
| Management / ownership | Gateshead Council |
|---|
| Environment | Outdoor — uncovered |
|---|
| Assessment basis | First-hand — assessor has skated this site |
|---|
| Assessor | Shred The North |
|---|
| Photographic record | Pending (Phase 2 structured visit) |
|---|
Overall Assessment
| Total score | 44 / 100 |
|---|
| Classification | Poor |
|---|
| Replacement suitability | Not suitable |
|---|
| Enhancement priority | High |
|---|
Category A: Location & Accessibility (20)
| Criterion | Max | Score | Notes |
|---|
| Town Centre Proximity | 5 | 3 | |
| Public Transport Access | 5 | 2 | |
| Catchment & Visibility | 5 | 2 | |
| Parking & Drop-off | 5 | 2 | |
| Subtotal | 20 | 9 | |
Category B: Physical Infrastructure (30)
| Criterion | Max | Score | Notes |
|---|
| Equipment Quality | 5 | 3 | Just three ill-designed features. |
| Equipment Variety | 5 | 1 | Only three features, and they don't flow well together. |
| Surface Condition | 5 | 3 | |
| Size & Capacity | 5 | 1 | Small footprint; the few obstacles seem to fill the space rather than provide meaningful engagement. |
| Safety & Maintenance | 5 | 3 | |
| Amenities | 5 | 0 | |
| Subtotal | 30 | 11 | |
Category C: Weather Protection (20)
| Criterion | Max | Score | Notes |
|---|
| Weather Protection | 10 | 0 | Uncovered. |
| Drainage | 5 | 3 | |
| Lighting | 5 | 0 | Unlit. |
| Subtotal | 20 | 3 | |
Category D: Replacement Potential (30)
| Criterion | Max | Score | Notes |
|---|
| Site Expansion Potential | 10 | 5 | Limited scope for growth, though the small space could be better used with more thoughtfully chosen obstacles. |
| Roof / Cover Feasibility | 10 | 6 | |
| Planning / Heritage Constraints | 5 | 5 | |
| Ownership / Land Availability | 5 | 5 | |
| Subtotal | 30 | 21 | |
Site Context
Felling's skatepark sits in a reasonably central, visible position —
its joint-best access score in the set. Like every existing borough park,
though, it is away from the town centre proper and offers no covered,
supervised, all-weather provision (see § 3.4).
User Observations
Felling amounts to three ill-designed features that don't flow well
together — much like Bill Quay, it reads as something built to fill a
space rather than to provide meaningful engagement for wheeled action
sports. In practice it is usually only used by local kids, and rarely as
intended skateable obstacles. There is limited scope for growth, but the
space, though small, could be put to much better use with a more
thoughtfully selected set of obstacles. Formal user counts and structured
feedback would be confirmed through the Phase 2 community engagement
programme (§ 2.5).
Location
FELLING SKATEPARK — SATELLITE VIEW (ESRI WORLD IMAGERY)
Aerial location view; the postcode in Site Basics above links through to
Google Maps. A photographic site record will be added through the
Phase 2 structured visit.
Summary
Overall44 / 100 — Poor
StrongestLocation & access, 9/20 — joint-best in the set; reasonably central and visible
WeakestReplacement potential, 21/30 — lowest in the set; constrained headroom on a small footprint
VerdictHigh-priority enhancement (access is the strength) — not a 5 Bridges replacement
Scored against the 100-point framework, drawing on aerial imagery,
public mapping and the assessor's first-hand experience skating the
site; a structured visit with a photographic record remains a Phase 2
step. Felling scores 44/100 (Poor). It has the joint-best access
score in the set (9/20) — a reasonably central, visible position
— but only three ill-designed features that don't flow, a moderate
equipment offer (11/30), and, like every existing park, no weather cover
(3/20).
Its limiting factor is the lowest replacement-potential score among the
parks (21/30): constrained expansion and covering headroom on the
existing footprint. It is a high-priority enhancement candidate where
access is the strength and physical headroom the constraint —
though even within that small space, a more thoughtfully chosen set of
obstacles would make far better use of it. Not a 5 Bridges
replacement.