SECTION 7

Recommendations

The 5 Bridges Options Study answers four questions:

  1. Can existing Gateshead provision adequately replace the closed facility?
  2. If not, which new-site options are viable?
  3. How should delivery be approached?
  4. What does the evidence point to?

Sections 2–6 set out the answers to the first three. This section sets out the fourth.

The recommendation that follows is built on the survey evidence in § 2 (134 responses, unusually consistent across all six measures), the policy alignment in § 1.3 (four locally-adopted documents and one national strategy), the existing-parks finding in § 3.6, the new-site assessment in § 4, the comparative options in § 5, and the precedent evidence in Appendix F.

INTERIM RECOMMENDATION · PHASE 1

The recommendation below is the Phase 1 finding, built on the evidence gathered through eight weeks of work to date: 134 survey responses, full policy alignment, assessment of all nine Gateshead skateparks, site visits to Askew Road and Gateshead Stadium (May 2026), eighteen UK and international precedent profiles, and the comparative work in § 5 and § 6.

A defined set of Phase 2 inputs remains outstanding — supplier design returns, contractor quotes for the council finance section, planning pre-applications, the nine existing-parks site visits, candidate car park identification, and follow-up engagement on demographic gaps. All are listed in Outstanding Evidence — Phase 2 Inputs on the report landing page. None, on the evidence to hand, is expected to overturn the Phase 1 finding; each is a confirmation or refinement step. The alternative-recommendation triggers in § 7.2 give the council an evidence-based pivot route if any Phase 2 input materially changes the comparative picture. Phase 2 is not work already under way: it would proceed only if the council decides to progress the project and expressly commissions the next stage (with Shred The North or another delivery partner).

7.1 Primary Recommendation

Gateshead Council should proceed with development of a phased replacement skatepark at Askew Road, with Phase 1 delivering ground preparation, the higher-coverage option (60–80% of the 842 m² plot), and relocated 5 Bridges equipment, alongside fit-out of two of the seven adjacent railway 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, contingent on planning approval and procurement timing. Supplier concept design is already in — Betongpark delivered the Askew Road concept on 16 May 2026 (see § 6.1.3). The 12-month horizon sits within the 58% majority the survey identified as wanting delivery within 12 months.

The site, in pictures

Seven photo and design-concept slots illustrate the Askew Road site and its supporting infrastructure. The supplier design concept slot is populated with Betongpark's entrance-view render (16 May 2026); the remaining slots draw on photos from the May 2026 site visit and populate as they are processed.

Wide panoramic view of the Askew Road site from across the road, showing the full run of seven railway arches with colourful murals, the bus lane in the foreground, and the urban context.

Site overview — the full arches run in its urban setting. April 2026.

The open plot at the west end of the Askew Road arches, showing the bridge ramp above, a gated arch, and the paved area where the skatepark would be built.

The ~842 m² plot — ground-level view of the skatepark site at the west end. April 2026.

Perspective view along the full run of seven railway arches from the west end, with colourful murals on each arch receding into the distance.

The seven railway arches — front-on view alongside the plot. April 2026.

East end of the Askew Road arches showing the large open through-arch and gold and purple murals on adjacent arches.

East end — the through-arch and mural detail. April 2026.

Close-up of a single railway arch with a large purple and orange mural reading Music Culture Create, showing the scale and character of the arch openings.

Arch detail — ‘Music Culture Create’ mural showing arch scale and character. April 2026.

Long view from the east end of the site looking back along the arches, showing the road, bus shelter, residential context on the hill above, and pedestrian access.

Context — surrounding land use, transport access, and residential area above. April 2026.

Betongpark concept render of the Askew Road skatepark: perspective view from the entrance looking down the length of the covered plaza, with the stone FIVE BRIDGES memorial plinth in the foreground, skaters using street features under a steel canopy, and the seven railway arches running along the right-hand side with cafe seating in front of them.

Gallery 7.1a — The Askew Road site and its seven adjacent railway arches. Photos from the May 2026 site visit; concept render from Betongpark (16 May 2026, see § 6.1.3).

Why Askew Road

Across the comparative framework, Askew Road meets the most of the community-priority requirements and unlocks the most of the supporting infrastructure case at a deliverable scale:

Phase 1 scope

The full Phase 1 / 2 / 3 scope is set out in § 6.1. The Askew Road Phase 1 / 2 / 3 cost envelope, funding stack, and revenue projections are in § F Finance.

Caveats on the primary recommendation

Ownership of the Askew Road site is resolved in the scheme's favour: the skatepark plot is council-owned, and the free-standing canopy is designed so the skatepark structure does not rely on Network Rail. Phase 1 also fits out two of the Network Rail-owned arches (Arch 2 toilets, Arch 6 storage), which depends on securing an early use-agreement with Network Rail — the scheme's one Network Rail dependency, and a use-agreement rather than a structural one; the remaining arches are an optional later-phase upside. That leaves a single material unknown on the Askew Road case at the time of this Phase 1 report:

This unknown is bounded and time-boxed. It is not a structural objection to the recommendation; it is the kind of confirmation step any major capital recommendation requires before commitment.

7.2 Alternative Recommendations

Stadium and the Car Park Conversion approach are positioned as evidence-ready alternatives, not also-rans. Each is good at something Askew Road is not, and each becomes the recommended option under specific conditions. The full case for each is set out in their respective § 6 entries.

7.2.1 Gateshead Stadium — the scale-and-deliverability alternative

Conditions under which Stadium becomes the recommended option:

Under any of these conditions, Stadium delivers the largest footprint of the three, full council ownership, the lowest deliverability risk, and the strongest co-location upside. The trade-off is partial covering (40–50%) on a sparser Phase 1, which the survey evidence flags as the core constraint relative to a more central, more-covered site.

7.2.2 Car Park Conversion — the covering-and-character alternative

This approach is building-agnostic: it applies to any qualifying sheltered, multi-storey car park the council chooses. A Quays-area building is used as the illustrative example throughout — partly because it would double as a town-centre / Quays regeneration anchor — but the conversion model is not tied to the Quays or to any one building.

Conditions under which the Car Park Conversion approach becomes the recommended option:

Under those conditions, a covered car park delivers 100% covering on enclosed levels at zero new-build covering cost — a unique offering across the three. The trade-off is the ceiling-height constraint on transition features and the prerequisite of council site identification, neither of which can be resolved before the building is chosen.

7.3 Recommendation Rationale

The primary recommendation is anchored in five separable evidence bases. Each is independently sufficient to reject "do nothing" and the existing-parks-only options; together they point to Askew Road as the lead because it best meets the conjunction of community priority, policy fit, deliverability, and precedent.

1. Community evidence (§ 2)

The survey's findings are unusually consistent across six measures. Cover is the non-negotiable, town-centre proximity is permitted but not required, existing parks do not absorb 5 Bridges users, phased delivery has a clear public mandate provided Phase 1 includes cover and quality surface, equipment reuse has 85% support, and time pressure is real but bounded. The Askew Road approach satisfies all six. The Stadium approach satisfies five (cover is partial); the Car Park Conversion approach satisfies all six but depends on a specific building being identified.

2. Policy alignment (§ 1.3)

Five locally-adopted policies and one national strategy line up directly behind a covered, free-at-point-of-use, all-ages skatepark in or near the urban core. CSUCP CS14, CS15, CS8, MSGP 39, MSGP 40, the Quays Development Framework (QB2), the Physical Activity Strategy 2022–2032, the Children & Young People's Partnership Strategy 2025–2030, and Sport England's Uniting the Movement all anticipate this kind of provision. The recommendation is asking the council to deliver against direction it has already set, against a recreational gap its own protective policy (MSGP 39) says should not stand. None of the three shortlisted sites contradicts any of the policies cited; Askew Road's centrality alignment with CS8 (focusing leisure / culture / tourism in the urban core) and CYP Strategy ("safer inclusive social and green spaces") gives it the strongest policy-fit reading of the three.

3. Existing-parks evidence (§ 3)

The assessment of the nine Gateshead parks confirms the community evidence: none has covered provision, none is town-centre located, all are dominated by transition rather than plaza terrain. Enhancement of the existing park with the greatest replacement potential (Dunston) is a useful longer-term adjunct but does not replace 5 Bridges. New-site provision is the policy-anticipated route.

4. Precedent evidence (Appendix F)

Eighteen profiles inform the case (eight deep, ten tail-list). Headline cost spread is £650/m² (StreetDome) → ~£780/m² (Lynch Family) → £5,230/m² (F51). The covered + reused-civic-infrastructure model that Askew Road approximates (purpose-built canopy + adjacent reused arches) is durable across decades (BaySixty6 28 years, Projekts MCR 21 years, Dean Lane 47 years), is current municipal policy in comparable jurisdictions (Friedensbrücke Frankfurt 2024), and supports the CIC + ancillary-revenue operating model (Spit & Sawdust Cardiff, Bryggeriet Malmö) that Shred The North would run.

5. Deliverability

On a 12-month Phase 1 horizon, Askew Road's smaller footprint, lower ground-prep volume, and council-led planning route are all deliverable advantages. Supplier concept design is in for the Askew Road site specifically — Betongpark delivered the concept on 16 May 2026 (see § 6.1.3); equivalent supplier work for the Car Park Conversion is dependent on building selection, and has not been commissioned for Stadium within the interim study window. The remaining unknowns are time-boxed. The financial picture (§ F) is consistent with this reading; Phase 2 contractor quotes will firm up the bracketed Phase 1 / 2 / 3 figures that section currently carries.

7.4 Next Steps

The pathway from report delivery to Phase 1 opening, on a 12-month horizon:

Stage Lead Indicative timing from approval Status
1. Council consideration of report & in-principle approval to proceed at Askew Road Council Cabinet / committee Weeks 0–6 of post-report period PENDING
2. Ownership confirmed (plot council-owned; arches Network Rail-owned); skatepark structure is free-standing, with no reliance on Network Rail. Outstanding: secure an early Network Rail use-agreement for the Phase 1 amenity arches (Arch 2 toilets, Arch 6 storage); commercial arches optional later Council estates & Shred The North Weeks 0–8 (parallel) IN FLIGHT
3. Formal ground / noise / drainage assessment (site visited May 2026; the formal assessment itself has not yet been carried out) Shred The North + supplier Weeks 1–4 SITE VISITED · ASSESSMENT PENDING
4. Detailed design (covering, layout, equipment placement, arches fit-out) — the Betongpark concept is for an augmented, purpose-built park, not a layout of the original 5 Bridges obstacles; how the salvaged 5 Bridges equipment is integrated is a detailed-design decision Skatepark supplier(s) + Shred The North Weeks 4–16 CONCEPT IN
5. Planning pre-application discussion, then full application Council planning + Shred The North Weeks 8–24 PENDING
6. Funding strategy implementation (council capital + Sport England / Lottery / heritage grants for arches) Council finance + Shred The North Weeks 0–24 (parallel) SEE § F
7. Community co-design for equipment layout Shred The North + community Weeks 12–20 PENDING
8. Procurement of contractors (ground prep, covering structure, arches plumbing) Council procurement + Shred The North Weeks 20–28 PENDING QUOTES
9. Construction Appointed contractors Weeks 28–48 PENDING
10. Phase 1 opening — Month 11–12 TARGET

Several Phase 1 dependencies can be progressed in parallel; the 12-month target relies on that parallelism. Where any single dependency is at risk of slipping the critical path (typically planning, the Network Rail use-agreement for the Phase 1 amenity arches, or supplier design), the alternative-recommendation triggers in § 7.2 give the council an evidence-based pivot route rather than a full restart.

Beyond Phase 1

Phases 2 and 3 are scoped in § 6.1: revenue-generating arches activated by the end of Year 2, the full seven-arch programme by Year 5 (the commercial arches subject to a Network Rail use-agreement), alongside equipment refresh and public-realm enhancement. The scope is designed to grow on the success of Phase 1 rather than depend on a single up-front capital commitment for all three phases.

The recommendation is built to grow with the council and the community. Five years on from a Phase 1 opening, Askew Road would carry a covered plaza skatepark, a working café and skate shop, a youth-services coaching arch, a community / events venue, and a 5 Bridges heritage gallery — on a single central site, on a phased capital pathway well within UK precedent. That is the future this study recommends Gateshead Council move toward, with the Stadium and Car Park Conversion approaches held in reserve as evidence-ready alternatives.