EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to examine the feasibility of the opening

of a skate park in Kilkenny city. The report outlines the important

critical success factors for such a park based on research on what

other providers have found over the past few years. These factors are

as follows:

o Design

o Insurance, Health and Safety

o Supervision

o Usage

o Local Support

o Fencing

o Partnerships

o Costings

These factors are used as a filter for examining possible sites near to

the city centre. Several such sites are identified and each is presented

outlining their usefulness for development. These sites are as follows:

o Riverside Walk – Handball Alley

o River Breaga/Nore confluence

o Water Barracks Area 1

o Water Barracks Area 2

o The Closh

An estimate of the possible costs of each site is based on figures for

site development and the provision of the skate ramps to each site.

1

The Authors feel that there is ample opportunity for building a skate

park in the area and furthermore that such a development should be

coupled with other activities for a variety of reasons. Skate boarding

has become an issue in Kilkenny and elsewhere because of the

dangers and inconvenience associated with street skating. There will

inevitably be some resistance to a skate park development no matter

where it is sited. Also there are the issues of security and usage of a

skating area and the Authors believe that if coupled with other

activities some of these issues will be addressed. To this end the report

identifies sites that have other development opportunities for the city.

The Appendices provide further information on a range of issues about

the skate park development.

2

INTRODUCTION

The provision of a Skate Park in Kilkenny has many advantages:

- Provide much needed youth facilities

- Regeneration of potential sites

- Development of physical activity provision for young

people

- Allow communities to work together

- Skills development for young people

- Development of ‘cultural hub’ in areas of youth interest

- Deliver a number of strategic aims for key

organisations

Kilkenny has a number of potential sites that would meet the criteria

needed for such a development and this report identifies in some detail

a number of key issues that will need to be addressed in order to

determine whether or not a skate park is a suitable asset for Kilkenny.

We have, through action based consultation, and investigative

research, been able to reveal and highlight the key issues and areas

of understanding that are required before embarking on any

development work.

The Department of the Environment recently announced funding for

the construction of skateboard parks in Ireland, and invited each City

and County Council to submit proposals to develop these facilities.

Some 21 Councils have already tendered for and been awarded

funding to build such facilities. (See Appendix 6). Though Kilkenny did

not make an application for this funding, at a recent local visit by the

relevant Minister (Mr. Dick Roche) the Department was strongly

3

supportive of a future bid by Kilkenny.

It is envisaged that this funding will have few, if any conditions

attached and presents a real opportunity for Kilkenny Councils to

provide a much needed facility. The amount of money awarded can be

used as part or full funding for skate parks. Funding from the

Department has varied from €35,000 to €150,000 with 14 of the 21

awards being over €100,000.

In examining the potential for such a development in Kilkenny,

Enterprise Actions Ltd. have paid particular attention to linking the new

park to other potential or existing facilities. This has been done to:

– Encourage the use of the facility

– Counter some of the objections that may arise in the

planning phase

– Provide co-financing opportunities

– Link with other sports clubs

– Support area rejuvenation

– Develop new partnerships with other service providers in

imaginative and innovative ways

It is entirely feasible that a suitable skate park facility can be provided

by Kilkenny local authorities, the critical questions that remain to be

answered however include; where, at what cost, how often it would be

used. Enterprise Actions Ltd have assessed the potential for a skate

park, and have highlighted issues and concerns, while presenting the

key factors that are needed to inform the future decisions the Council

may take.

4

1. METHODOLOGY

Consultation

Consultation took many forms, the Authors contacted local authorities

who host skate parks, and also sought advice and information from

private Skate Parks. We also consulted with schools, the Sports

Partnership, and the Council. An open meeting was held with skaters

locally that focussed mainly around design issues and what they

viewed as the most important success factors in a skate park. Three

Borough Councillors attended this meeting. This discussion meeting

was prompted by the use of skate park designs from the UK to

stimulate debate and allow for critical analysis of what would and

would not work here. Many of the skaters were well informed and had

experience of skating in parks elsewhere.

We also attempted to include the Gardai, but despite numerous calls

and contacts, this was not possible in the time frame of the report.

However, we strongly recommend that before a park is developed that

the Community Officer be consulted.

Liaison with the Community and Enterprise section of the Council was

maintained throughout the writing of the report.

Design, site and costings

We gathered a range of information from a range of suppliers, taking

on board comments from skaters, and those who run skate parks.

This allowed us to look at various designs, sizes, materials, and ensure

we were well briefed in terms of skateability and popularity. An

important aspect of any new facility will be on going costs – such as

5

maintenance and repairs and a number of suppliers were happy to

provide us with information.

Operational Models

Research was undertaken to investigate the most common forms of

skate park provision, and via consultation with skaters, suppliers and

providers, a list of ‘pros and cons’ were developed for each model –

leading to our investigating the two models with the least ‘cons’. After

this was completed we were able to assess Insurance and Health and

Safety issues more thoroughly. This aspect of our study is important

as it shows why we have developed our feasibility around the

development of outdoor parks. However, we have included the full list

so that Officers and Councillors can be made aware of all the pros and

cons that exist within each operational model.

Insurance and Health & Safety

A full study of the practical details of insurance and Health and Safety

issues was undertaken so as to inform the examination of potential

sites locally. Research also involved the need for fencing, lighting and

compliance with BSI safety standards.

Sites

Site visits were conducted, taking on board a number of critical issues,

informed by consultation with suppliers, providers and skaters. It

became obvious early on that the importance of providing the right

venue is of paramount importance to the future success of the

facility. We have compiled a list of sites that we feel have good

potential, and also provide a focus of regeneration to under used

facilities or areas of the City. We feel that our explorations, sometimes

in quiet, out of the way places have revealed an exciting number of

6

prospective sites, as early consultation showed that we needed to be

innovative and look beyond the obvious in this regard. A number of

skaters that took part in the Consultation Evening were invited to visit

the sites to make suggestions, and review their location and potential.

The most suitable sites were examined from a variety of perspectives

and some financial projections were arrived at in conjunction with

Council officials.

Partnerships

A number of interested parties were met or telephoned to discuss

possible partnerships or linkages for a skate park – including schools

and sports providers. The Authors strongly advise that as many

partners as possible are included in the Park development to ensure

increased usage and security and to help spread the development

costs.

7

2. CRITICAL ISSUES

Enterprise Actions Ltd. feel it necessary to look at the wider contextual

issues regarding the provision of a skate park. These issues are

critical in determining the type of park and location that is finally

decided upon. The critical issues we identified are:

I. Design

II. Insurance, Health and Safety

III. Supervision

IV. Usage

V. Local Support

VI. Fencing

VII. Partnerships

VIII. Costings

I. Design

Consultation with skaters revealed that preferred designs include

street obstacles – steps, rails, benches etc. – indeed the type of

obstacle that they use in ‘The Street’ taking advantage of street

furniture and the urban landscape to perform tricks and refine their

style. Some felt that the archetypical feature of a skate park – the half

pipe, was out of favour, and that in some cases the obstacles provided

were too difficult to manage – too high, or inclined to break the flow of

certain moves. However, it would be unwise to reject the more

advanced obstacles, such as half pipes and bowls, as skaters will

inevitably progress in their sport. With more difficult ramps in place,

visiting ‘expert’ demonstrations become possible, as do competitions

8

and multi-use - inline skates, BMX - for example could also be provided

for.

Bowl type designs are becoming increasingly popular. This is an

undulating concrete base that follows the contours of the landscape

and has features built into it that form a continuous ride for the

skaters. The features are also formed in concrete and there is drainage

built into the base to allow for run-off from the lower parts of the bowl.

These bowls also have the advantage of being quieter than above

ground ramps. Many people consider them more aesthetically pleasing

than other parks and of course they are cheaper to maintain. The

parks being built in Bushy Park in Dublin and in Gorey in Co Wexford

are of this style. However, some skater’s have expressed that a

certain degree of skill is needed when using these structures, and it

would be advisable to keep in mind that most ‘amateur’ skaters prefer

‘street’ style obstacles in addition to bowl type, hence the possible

need for bowls and some above ground modular structures.

It is important that various grades of ramps be included in whatever

design is eventually opted for. Though the numbers of committed

skaters may be small in the area now, if the facilities are provided then

more will participate. These beginners need to be properly

accommodated in the park and given the space to learn so that they

will progress to more advanced levels in time.

Skaters are usually of school age, so it is important to cater for their

needs in terms of the times they may use the park – after school, in

the evening, and apart from school holidays at weekends. To ensure

usage in the winter, and in bad weather, some form of lighting may

9

well be necessary, as well as some form of roof covering creating a

hybrid indoor/outdoor style park.

II. Insurance and Health & Safety

The most difficult stumbling block to operating a skate park over the

past years has been the issue of insurance. With the growth of skate

parks in the UK and Europe, and the issuing of guidelines from various

agencies, the public body insurers in Ireland have relaxed the

conditions imposed on the operators of parks and this has opened up

new avenues for their development. In short, the provision of

unsupervised outdoor parks is now more feasible than it once was.

In order to satisfy most insurers, Skate parks and the way they are

installed and managed, need to comply with PAS30 and 35 :2002 of

the British Safety Institute (BSI). The BSI guidelines, released in 2002,

lay down the safety requirements and summarize the relevant design

issues for skate and similar parks. The guidelines aim to provide a

facility that is exciting but safe, specifying safety requirements to

protect users and spectators from hazards. PAS30 & 35:2002 are

generally the safety codes that are adopted across Europe. It should

be noted that in 2006/7 there will be new EU regulations issued .

It is envisaged that these new regulations will be stricter than at

present, so any new facilities should expect to fully comply with all

safety standards when designing new parks.

In addition to the BSI guidelines, the Irish Public Bodies Mutual

Insurances has set conditions for the insurance to cover the

operations of the parks.(See appendix 1) The main advantage of the

10

new regulations is that constant supervision of the parks is NOT

necessary for compliance with the regulations. This eliminates a huge

expense on the on-going costs of the park and one of the major

reasons for park failures in the past.

For the Council to comply with the IPBMI guidelines skate park

operators need to satisfy a range of requirements and a summary of

these are set out in Appendix 1 under IPBMI.

III. Supervision.

Part of the availability of new facilities is down to the issue of

supervision. Up to recently it was an insurance requirement that such

parks be supervised when open. This obviously presented a huge cost

and logisitical challenge to the operators. Many of the Councils are now

considering opening parks that will have full, easy and open access to

all, with a supervisory presence just to check on the condition of the

park regularly. Though this is tempting, the situation is a little more

complicated than just looking at the cost implications. The skaters are

viewed by many other youth groups as outcasts and a little bit ‘nerdy’

and so can be an easy target for some rough treatment. In the early

days of the skate park it would be important that the park not develop

a bad name amongst skaters and so the Authors feel that at least

some supervision should be made available. Parents will also be wary

at first of how safe their child(ren) will be in the park and any initial

trouble period will take a long time to reverse. The Council have a

recent example of the issues around supervision in the recently opened

playparks in the City. This highlights some of the issues at stake. An

indoor or enclosed park may have advantages over an open park in

this respect. If the skaters are involved in the design and planning of

the park, it is not unreasonable to suggest to them that the older

11

members form some sort of group, with Ossory Youth Services

providing some leadership skills. These individuals could then be

involved in the arranging of a limited amount of the supervision. If

individual skaters are not forthcoming with this initiative, it points to

some degree to their eventual usage of the park. Obviously there are

younger skaters who cannot be required to take part in this

programme but others could display ownership responsibilities. Older

skaters may be encouraged to take on a coaching role in the facility

and so help build a club atmosphere. Further research should also be

undertaken to encourage youth organizations in the supervision of the

parks.

The Garda cannot be expected to provide supervision for this type of

facility and it would be the wrong type of supervision anyway because

it may seem that ‘trouble’ is expected. Also it should be noted that

there may be changes in bye-laws needed if the Garda are to be in a

position to directly access the park in the case of trouble.

IV. Usage

As in other places, the skaters point out that they will still use Kilkenny

City Centre when the park is established. This is for various reasons:

– Because it is where they gather traditionally

– It is so central

– Because a certain percentage of them like the ‘outcast’

nature of skating and being identified as such

Skating defines more than just a sporting intention but also a way of

life, an attitude, an image and sometimes just a fashion accessory.

One judgement the Councillors will have to make is how much use the

12

park will get as time goes on. The limited experience in this country of

municipal parks makes it hard to judge such usage in advance.

The skaters are convinced that huge numbers will come out to use a

good park, however the Authors have concerns. Having spoken to

people who have been around such facilities for a number of years

they suggest that usage is periodic rather than continuous, that the

skaters are not interested in being organised, that they prefer the

street to the park and that most skaters maintain their interest only

between the years of 13 and 16/17. Obviously skaters deny these

impressions and say that this is all mainly because no facilities have

been provided to date and it is so ‘difficult’ to be a skater that it is not

surprising so many people give up. As a youth facility, a Skate Park is

more likely to attract only boys, unless youth leaders work with girl’s

groups to build teams and skills amongst the girls.

V. Local Support

It is important that whatever site is chosen, it should be one where

local residents are supportive of the proposal. In selecting a site The

Council should hold meetings with local resident’s associations and

actively campaign for their support. People in other localities have

expressed concern about the siting of a skate park in their area,

because skaters are seen as ‘outsiders’ and have a ‘bad image’

(possibly because of their use of the streets to date). However

unfounded the communities fears are, these issues must be addressed.

The local community can offer a lot of passive security to the park and

their support can bolster this considerably.

Involving local Youth groups in the early stages of the park

development would be an important part of building interest in using

13

the park and a sense of ownership amongst the youth. If the park area

can incorporate several activities this will greatly improve the chances

of continued use and improve the security aspect of the development.

VI. Fencing

The issue of the need for fencing is unclear at present. The insurance

companies are not stating what exact type of fencing will be required

and as noted above, some Council’s have opted for minimal fencing

with just a corral type fence to prevent accidents (though currently

compliance with PAS 30 and 35 does rely on suitable fencing). One

argument is the fact that high security type fencing is a challenge to

the wrong people to attempt to break into the park when unattended.

It also creates the wrong environment for people to play in. There is

also the matter of then opening and closing the park and asking people

to leave at a particular time. This adds to the expense of running the

park. Obviously the Council has wardens that currently open and close

parks and public conveniences at given times and their duties could be

extended to include the skate park. The range of Council responses to

this question is quite wide and is usually established in negotiation with

the legal advisers of each Council. The insurers refer to the safety

guidelines PAS 30 and 35 but these are not overly prescriptive in this

regard.

VII. Partnerships

The idea of a stand alone skate park has several difficulties from both

a site location and operational point of view. The Authors feel that the

14

possibility of partnering with some organisation, club or association

should be explored when reviewing potential sites. It is important that

the skate park be used as much as possible and creating a sense of

activity is easier done in combination with others. To this end several

clubs, schools and associations were approached in the course of this

study to ascertain their willingness to become involved in the skate

park development.

Initially, the Authors felt that this might provide access to a much

needed site as well as offering the supervisory benefits. However, the

provision of a site in the City is not an issue here as there are several

suitable sites available. The changes in insurance requirements means

that supervision is not the costly imperative it once was. The issue of

partnership has become more one of ‘combining’ and looking at sites

to see if there are other symbiotic developments that could be linked

to the park. For instance, other compatible activities would include in-

line hockey, roller blading, BMX-ing, and other ‘action’ sports such as a

climbing wall. However, other linked activities are also feasible and in

examining the favoured sites below some consideration of possible

linked activity is suggested.

Sports Partnership. The Kilkenny Sports and Recreational Partnership

represents most of the major sports associations in the county. The

Partnership was contacted and a presentation made to their November

meeting about the possibility of providing a space in one of the local

sports facilities for the proposed skate park. Though this presentation

was well received it did not lead to any viable suggestions that could

be followed up. The Sports Partnership itself does not have a strategy

around the issue of minority youth sports such as skating, bmx biking

or roller blading. The Partnership focuses on programmes for particular

15

target groups, including Youth. There is an Action for Youth

programme that is based in 2 schools locally and it is suggested that

as and when the skate park is established that contact be made with

the Partnership in order to help the promotion of the park amongst the

local young people.

Schools. Kieran’s college, Presentation Secondary School and the

Loreto convent were identified as those schools with most potential as

they had developed extra curricular activity on an on-going basis.

However, the principals of the schools, though positive towards the

move, felt that they either had not the space or the commitment to

engage with the idea.

With the assistance of the offices of the VEC a contact was made with

all the schools in the area, outlining the idea and how the partnership

might work but again no expression of intent was made by any school.

The Authors believe that there is a genuine support for the idea of a

skate park from within the school system and that this should be

tapped as the park becomes a reality. The schools could help organise

those who are interested in using the park, eventually having school

teams that would help develop local competition. It would be a good

way of trying to include the skaters, many of whom feel outcast from

mainstream systems. The school grounds have invariably got some

hard surface areas that could be used for the placement of temporary

ramps to help build interest in the initial stages of the park’s

development.

16

Private Park. Kilkenny is unusual in having one of the very few private

skate parks in the Country based in Kiltorcan, Thomastown. The

Authors met with the Proprietor of this park and discussed various

issues at length with him. Obviously with his experience he had some

valuable comments to make, but asked us not to connect him

specifically to any comment. We would like to acknowledge that his

comments have informed this document.

VIII. Costings

The issue of the cost of the skate park is difficult to ascertain at this

stage as there are too many variables left undecided. All of the sites

detailed below have different cost implications. Some would need more

fencing than others, some would need more preparatory ‘groundworks’

and others have costs of roofing and lighting. What the Authors have

set out below are some of the important issues that affect how much

the park will cost the Council to set up.

The over riding issue is how much the Council is prepared to spend on

the park. This is not just a matter as to how much may be available

from the Department of the Environment as the question of matching

funding has to be decided. The monies allocated to date vary from

€35,000 up to €150,000 and average at around €100.000. However,

some Councils are providing some extra funding to the parks though

this is not a criterion for the funding. The Gorey Skate Park has

received Department funding of €110,000 and Wexford County Council

is matching this with a further €130,000. This is, we believe the largest

spend in the country and will be for a ‘bowl’ type park (see Appendices

2 and 6 ) of 700 square metres in size. The Council needs to consider

the issue of ‘hard cash’ it might make available and also what, if any,

17

other services it may contribute in terms of time and expertise from

within their own staff.

Obviously there is the question of the park size and for the sites

examined in detail below this is an open question. By that we mean

that there is more than enough space available at each site to cater for

a decent sized park. So the Council needs to decide on how big an area

to fence off to provide the skating area. A small park would be around

150 square metres and most parks would be between 200 and 300

square metres, and as noted above the largest park planned is of 700

square metres.. The sites identified below have all got more than 300

square metres of useable area available for conversion into a park.

(see Section 4)

Decisions need to be made about the type of fencing to be erected. As

stated above the insurance requirements are vague on this and leave it

up to the Councils themselves to decide on what exactly would be

used. It varies between a low corral type fence and some quite high

netting fence of 2.4 metres in height. The cost per running metre of

these fences varies quite substantially and each site has different

lengths of fencing needed.

Concrete is the most common ground surface used in skate parks and

this can be estimated at €50 per square metre. This would be a price

for laying and power floating once the ground has been prepared to a

reasonable condition. The various sites have different amounts of

groundwork needed to prepare the site.

Roofing and lighting. Two of the sites detailed below are suitable for

the development as covered areas and this would involve some

18

structural steel works and roof cladding materials. The resultant park

would be ‘semi-enclosed’, by which we mean that they would not be

indoor parks but would be weather proof yet open. An estimate for the

cost of such a covering is given in the details of these sites.

The number and type of ramps also has a bearing on the cost of the

park and contact was made with suppliers to ascertain the

approximate cost of providing and installing such equipment. Again the

size and nature of the park affects this cost but it is safe to assume

that between €30,000 and €50,000 would cover this cost. In costing

each site we have assumed a constant cost of €40,000 for each site as

an indicative figure. More detail on the types of equipment are outlined

within Appendices 2 and 6.

As regards the running costs of the parks this is basically down to the

cost of supervision, some maintenance of the equipment, grounds

maintenance, disposal of rubbish, inspection costs to meet insurance

requirements and some electricity where lighting is provided. The

supervision is the cost of a park warden to check the park daily when

open over the whole year and also the cost of more intense

supervision in the first three months, and possibly beyond this time

frame.

In the examination of the sites below a rough guide price on what the

cost of the park might be is given. However, it is stressed that this is

only a ‘guesstimate’ and is not a comparative figure between each site

because of the differences in the nature of each site. To try to keep

consistency it is assumed that each park would be around 300 metres

in size and that the ramps would cost €40,000 in each park. Fencing is

19

assumed to be 2,4 metres in height and is costed at €85 per linear

metre.

Our costings do not include any budgets for the provision of Council

staff in developing these parks.

20

3. OPERATIONAL MODELS:

Although a full business model is inappropriate at this stage of a

feasibility review, it is important to assess the types of park that could

be possible, which will in turn determine how they operate and how

they are managed. Partnership approaches have also been considered,

and these are dealt with in the following chapter. For ease of use we

have looked at the pros and cons of the different types of park that

could be possible, and have made some observations on each.

I. Indoor – supervised facility – Which provides potential for

franchising and strong income generation

II. Outdoor – supervised facility – which can reduce liability issues

III. Outdoor – free standing where the public can come and skate on

their own, at their own risk

IV. Mobile – a facility that can be used as a temporary fixture in a

range of settings

21

I. INDOOR FACILITY

PROS

All weather facility allows for gate money and income generationCan be open at night and in the evenings – a popular time for

skatersCan be monitored – reducing risk of Anti Social BehaviourWooden ramps are more feasible – which are more comfortable

for skaters, arguably some say a safer surfaceEasier to supervise – safer for younger skatersMore vandal proofMore opportunities for marketing and promotional eventsFranchising opportunities for related activity – shops, youth

centre etc.Users are ‘off the streets’ and relatively safe while using the

buildingFirst aid room can be an option

CONS

Costly – large, indoor space needed at least 150sq.mAdditional costs include lighting, cleaning, heating, air

conditioning, security, and other building maintenance

issuesBuilding will need to be staffedNeed to ensure enough space within the building to

minimise collisions, and smooth transitions between

obstacles – difficult in a confined spaceNoisy Needs air conditioningFinding a suitable venue, and preparing it could use up a

lot of time Can become crowdedStreet skaters prefer outdoor parksNeed to charge a fairly hefty entrance fee/membership fee to

cover costs

22

23

II. OUTDOOR FACILITY - SUPERVISED

PROS

Usually, more space is available outdoors, leading to bigger park

– more popular with skaters, and saferCan be fenced off for securitySkate Park designs can be adapted after installation Can use durable, popular, and reasonably safe concrete where

necessaryObstacles can be more ‘unique’ leading to greater popularityMore realistic ‘street skate’ atmosphere – popular amongst

young peopleCheaper than an indoor facilityCan charge entrance fee/membership fee if the facility is fencedCan be monitored – reducing risk of Anti Social Behaviour

CONS

Security can be an issue – needs to be secured when not in

useCannot be used in certain weather conditionsCan be a target for vandalsSupervision may be difficult logisticallyUsage limited to daylight hours – unless floodlighting is

providedThe provision of some sort of covering/shelter may be

required to ensure usage

III. OUTDOOR FACILITY – UNSUPERVISED

24

PROS

Cheap to installBoarders can be supervised by parents and peers if necessaryYouth have the opportunity to develop a sense of ‘ownership’ of the

park – for them, by them, and supervised by themDoes away with the costs associated with supervisionNo need for membershipNew relaxed insurance laws make this more of a possibilitySkaters can use the facility when they choose to

CONS

Unless fenced off, does not comply to European Safety CriteriaTarget for vandalsCan be a focal point for ‘loitering’ and bullying – which could push

skaters back on the streetWill not be able to charge for use – no income streamUnable to develop a strategic sports profile for KilkennyAs fencing is required, staff will be needed to lock up

IV. MOBILE SKATE PARK

PROS

Can meet young peoples needs where they areEncourages participation in sportsEncourages youth development in a variety of settingsEasy to store (in a standard car park space)Is suitable as a starter provision, possibly before a permanent

park is consideredIs a cost effective provision across a widely spread populationUseful where planning permission for a static Skate Park may not

be availableA mobile park can be ‘shared’ by a variety of groups giving the

maximum enjoyment for the minimum cost

25

Park design can change to suit ability of rider – and/or to reduce

rider becoming bored with the layout – adapts to his or her level

of skillGood opportunity for private/public sector partnership

CONS

Hard to establish a sense of place/cultural hub around mobile

facilityWill need to be packed up, driven, erected and dismantled at the

end of each session – causing extra expense in terms of staffingWill need careful marketing to ensure skaters know where and

when it will be in placeModular design may be limitingUnsuitable for demonstrationsSitings will need to be found on a regular basis – leading to

insecurityCannot be left overnight as it is not vandal proof (unless on

guaranteed secure site)Not a particularly popular option with skaters – particularly street

skatersDrivers will need training in constructing and dismantling the

equipmentStorage is a key issueWill need regular checking to ensure safetyRequires smooth surfaces for placement –and skateability

With regard to these findings, we have concentrated on the two

outdoor options, as the ‘pros’ currently outweigh the ‘cons’

-unlike the mobile facility, or the indoor facility. However, there

are possibilities for certain sites to develop a ‘hybrid’ type park

that would have many advantages, as outlined in the tables

26

above. The Council will need to balance the ideas of supervision,

safety and costs very carefully when making future decisions, as

the issue of supervision has only recently been relaxed in terms

of insurance, and may well change again in the future.

As stated earlier, Kilkenny is blessed with having several site

options open to the Council to develop. The next section deals

with the various favourite sites identified and these are examined

in relation to the critical success factors.

27

4. SITES

This section deals with the identification and assessment of several

sites in the city environs.

Each of the sites are examined under the following criteria:

I. Security/ Fencing

II. Access

III. Proximity to City Centre

IV. Skate-ability

V. Town Development

VI. Noise Control

VII. Covering & Lighting

VIII. Other

IX. Costs

The sites we recommend for further investigation include:

a) Michael Street – Handball Alley

b) River Breaga/Nore confluence

c) Water Barracks Area 1

d) Water Barracks Area 2

e) The Closh

28

a. Michael Street Handball Alley area.

This is a handball alley park with a disused basketball court and some

grass areas. It is bounded by the road, Michael Street, on one side, St

John’s primary school grounds and the new river walk. It has great

potential as a skate park for a variety of reasons. A really imaginative

use of this area would be to retain the ball alleys and to roof them and

open a connection in the current dividing wall. It is not suggested to

try to make an indoor park but a type of ‘middle ground’ structure.

Using a modern sheeting material that is quite lightweight and leaving

open screen windows in the walls. The area would offer a degree of

weatherproofing, yet is light and airy, giving year round use of the

facility with easy security at the entrances.

a. Michael Street Handball Alley area.

29

a. Michael Street Handball Alley area.

a. Michael Street Handball Alley area.

30

I. Security/ Fencing: this area could be fenced off easily as there are

walls on two sides already in situ and the site forms a natural,

separate area on its own.

II. Accessibility: Getting in and out of the area is easy as it is bounded

by a road and the riverwalk. Vehicle access on the street above the

area is busy at school times but otherwise is relatively quiet for drop-

off purposes. The quayside is also accessible by vehicle.

III. Proximity to City Centre: The area is very central and if and when

the proposed footbridge is erected, will be even more so. It is visible

from the ‘Dunnes’ car park and with an open aspect that would be

good for security and supervision.

IV. Skate-ability: This area is the one that is favoured by the skaters,

especially if it is was to be ‘semi-enclosed’. It has a couple of different

slopes that could be used as ‘bowl’ type rides that would improve the

value to the skaters.

V. Town Development: currently the area is used for drinking and anti-

social behaviour and it could do with being cleaned up. The provision of

a Skate Park would add to the already improved river walk area –

regenerating the area. This is becoming a keen walking area for town

residents and as such, there may be some complaints about using this

site as a Skate Park. Local residents may also have to be reassured

regarding noise, but given the area’s current use, the positive aspects

of the facility may actually reduce the amount of noise currently

witnessed.

31

VI. Covering/lighting: The alleys could be quite easily converted into a

semi open structure providing a weather proof facility. It would be

quite feasible to place a modern sheet roof using the existing walls but

leaving it semi-open. The centre wall could be largely removed

allowing access to both ball alleys and an area of about 200 square

metres of Skate Park.

VII. Noise control: The high walls of the alley and the hedging by the

school grounds are natural noise control factors. The nearby housing

would need to be assured that the area would be secured to prevent

late night use of the park.

VIII. Other: The re-development of the area could include the use of

part of the area as a school playground. As the area in total is larger

than a Skate Park would need to be. The handball alley is very much

underused and if part of it was demolished a couple of walls could be

used as a climbing wall and training centre for that type of activity. The

larger basketball area could be used as a pitch for the Kilkenny in-line

hockey team or for more beginner type ramps that are easily

moveable. Although the handball alleys are of little architectural merit,

they are part of a national cultural heritage, and therefore any

development must be dealt with sensitively. Access may be difficult

for emergency vehicles.

IX. Costs: Groundwork. If the alleys were to be converted into covered

skating areas it is estimated that a roof, lighting and associated works

would cost in the region of €50,000. Creating an opening in the middle

wall of the alleys and building some features within the alleys would

probably cost another €15,000. Access for machinery to this area is

limited so would add to the costs.

32

Concreting the outside area over the basketball court would cost

approximately €20,000.

Fencing : 60 metres @ €85 per metre = €5,100

Ramps : €40,000

Total : €130,000

b. River Breaga/Nore confluence.

This site is situated at Green’s Bridge and is on the ‘down river’ side. It

is a large, under used area that has access through a gate and a road

33

that curves through the area. It would need fencing by the river for

security and safety reasons but has massive potential and would be

relatively cheap to develop. It has two bridge arches that could be

used as part of the park as bench areas and/or shelter.

b. River Breaga/Nore confluence.

34

b. River Breaga/Nore confluence.

b. River Breaga/Nore confluence.

I. Security/ Fencing: Security here may be an issue as it is a little

secluded or out of view in some ways. However, because of the size of

the area it could be coupled with other uses (such as canoeing and

river sports) and lead to a general upgrading of the area. Obviously

the river banks would have to be properly fenced for safety reasons. It

is a walled area at the boundaries.

II. Access: The area already has gated access and a road that is

serviceable for vehicles and would be safe for dropping off children

from cars.

III. Proximity to City Centre: This site is in walking distance from the

City Centre – a factor that consultation revealed as important to users.

However it is far enough away from the centre that may result in it not

35

being used as often as other proposed sites. It is in an area that would

have limited potential for other types of development, as river walk

access is not continuous and the area appears unused.

IV. Skateability: There are some sloping areas that could be

incorporated and also two bridge arches that may prove useful as

variety. The arches could also provide shelter in poor weather.

This site could be extended with relatively little additional costs.

V. Town Development: There is some talk of canoeists using this area

as a suitable access area for the river. There should be no conflict of

interest in both groups being accommodated at this site. There is

enough room for both and they would not be incompatible in nature or

indeed culture – both being considered ‘extreme’ sports. Having as

much activity going on in the general area of the proposed skate park

would be good for security and building enthusiasm, and interest in

both sports. Other possible development issues are the linear park

developments along this side of the river. There is no reason that both

these developments could not go hand in hand and the river walk

would allow for extra passive security for the skate park.

VI. Covering/lighting: Cover would be difficult for this area as it is so

open but some lighting could be provided from extra lights being fitted

to the street lights on the bridge. Safety restrictions may require

lighting along the river bank. Lighting will need to be carefully situated

to avoid residential interference

VII. Noise Control: There are very few nearby houses that would be

disturbed and the road noise would far outweigh the park noise.

36

VIII. Costs: Groundworks: Some clearance works would be needed but

probably no more than about €5,000. Lighting could be provided,

mounted off the bridge and the archways incorporated as shelters,

€5,000.

Concreting : 300 square metres but incorporating some sloping areas

as park features. Total €25,000

Fencing : The river front would need to be securely fenced and in total

about 60 metres of fencing would be required. Total €5,000.

Ramps : €40,000

Total : €80,000

c. .Water Barracks Area 1.

This area has several sports facilities already on both sides of the road

leading down to Kilcreene Lodge. On one side are two handball alleys

and it is possible to see how this area could be landscaped and shaped

to accommodate a skate park. Again as with the Riverside alleys these

could be left in place and a semi-enclosed area built - with some

imaginative roof covering and the connecting wall between the alleys

opened to increase the size.

37

c. .Water Barracks Area 1.

c. .Water Barracks Area 1.

38

c. .Water Barracks Area 1.

I. Security/ Fencing : The park would have to be bounded on the road

sides for safety reasons but two sides are already walled in. It would

have good open visibility from the roundabout for security purposes.

II. Access: The roundabout is a busy one but there is a safe ‘pull-in

and drop off’ area on the road that leads to Kilcreene Lodge.

Pedestrian crossings are located nearby for those approaching on foot.

III. Proximity to City Centre: Close to the Irishtown area and within

easy walking distance of the city centre, though probably at the outer

limit of what the skaters would regularly use.

IV. Skateability: The whole site has potential as a circular park based

around the existing alleys, though this would require imaginative,

extensive landscaping. In fact the difficulty would be to find level

ground for modular equipment and ‘beginner’ ramps.

39

V. Town Development: This site is close to an established sports area

and would perhaps rejuvenate the sports facilities as they are

underused at present. This could allow for the creation of a youth

sports ‘hub’ in the area, and as with other sites – offer The Council

interesting regeneration solutions. The site is also near the two RAPID

areas of St Canice’s and The Butts.

VI. Covering/lighting: It would not be necessary to remove the

handball alleys to accommodate the park but as with the Michael

Street site they could be incorporated into a semi-open ramp area.

VII. Skateability: The area around the alleys could be developed as

ramps, the exact area available would need to be designed in

conjunction with the Council’s Roads Department.

VIII. Noise Control: This would not be a problem as the road noise

would be far greater and there is limited housing at the roundabout.

IX. Other comments: The handball alley is very much underused and if

part of it was demolished a couple of walls could be used as a climbing

wall and training centre for that type of activity. Road safety would

need to be looked at in terms of young people using a busy crossing.

X. Costs: Goundworks. There would need to be careful groundworks

done around the alleys, cutting back the bank towards the road to

provide suitable level areas for ramps. Estimate of €15,000. The

roofing, lighting and associated works would probably be slightly

cheaper than at Michael Street because access is easier, €40,000.

40

Concreting. 300 square metres but including some sloping areas,

€25,000

Fencing. 70 metres of fencing, €6,000.

Ramps . €40,000

Total. €126,000

d. Water Barracks Area 2

This site is located around the basketball court and seating area

opposite the alleys discussed above (Water Barracks 1). There is a

large grassed area behind the seats and before the footpaths. This site

could stretch down to the Breaga River on one side. There is a

basketball court there that would not need to be part of the skate

park, but as with other sites, its location could create an interesting

multi-use sports area.

41

d. Water Barracks Area 2

d. Water Barracks Area 2

42

d. Water Barracks Area 2

I. Security/ Fencing: This area is very open and would need proper

fencing from a road safety and river safety aspect. The length of

fencing would add to the cost of the park. The amount of traffic and

passers by would allow for some passive security for the skaters.

II. Access: This is excellent. The roundabout is a busy one but there is

a safe ‘pull-in and drop off’ area on the road that leads to Kilcreene

Lodge. There are pedestrian crossings in operation for those

approaching on foot.

III. Proximity to City Centre: Close to the Irishtown area and within

easy walking distance of the city centre. It is probably on the outer

limit of where the skaters might regularly use.

IV. Skate-ability: The area has a large flat space that is really quite

large for a park and has some sloped ground towards the road that

43

would make an interesting feature within the park. The area is large

enough to incorporate several different ramps, obstacles and modular

equipment.

V. Town Development: The site is exposed as it is attached to the

soccer pitch area which is a little underutilised at present. There would

be the possibility of using the park development to reawaken interest

in the sports grounds area. Close to two RAPID areas: The Butts and

St. Canice’s.

VI. Covering/lighting: This would be difficult due to the size of the site

Lighting would need to be incorporated into the design of the park.

Teen shelters may need to be erected to provide shelter from

inclement weather.

VII. Noise Control: This would not be a problem as the road noise

would be far greater and there is limited housing at the roundabout.

VIII. Other comments:

Area needs to be assessed in terms of possible flooding

IX. Costs: Groundworks. Simple works needed to cut back the current

bank to nearer the road but leaving slopes to be incorporated into the

park as steps and ramps. €5,000. Lighting for security purposes and

two simple shelters, €10,000

Concreting. Again easy access and a lot of the ground is currently

level, 300 meters, €15,000.

44

Fencing. The full perimeter of this park would need fencing, a total of

100 meters, €9,000

Ramps. €40,000

Total. €79,000

e. The Closh.

There is an area of green in a triangle shape that is between two roads

- beside where many school buses pick up children from school. The

grass area is quite large and at one end are temporary buildings

currently occupied by a School for the disabled. The area is walled and

as it is beside the cinema, has adequate ‘drop off’ facilities. Only a

section of the total area need be used as a skate park.

45

e. The Closh.

e. The Closh.

46

e. The Closh.

I. Security/ Fencing: There is a low wall around the area at present and

railings could be placed on top of this if deemed necessary. The

ground level could be lowered inside and so the wall may be of

sufficient height to provide adequate security. The area is in a very

public space with a lot of people coming and going.

II. Access: The Closh area has fabulous access as it is at the cross

roads of several access routes to the centre and is a typical ‘drop-off’

area with the general public.

III. Proximity to City Centre: It is also within a very short walking

distance from the centre. It is located between the centre and a

housing area.

IV. Skate-ability: The area within the walls is level and because of the

height of the walls it may not be possible to create safe sloping areas

47

for the skaters. However, it would be easy to construct a very simple

park here.

V. Town Development: This area is underused, except when the circus

and funfair comes to town and because of its irregular shape it is not a

viable area for a regular sports field. Only a section would be needed

to create a Skate Park and it could also be used as a children’s

playground area, though safety standards would need to be referred

to (ensuring compliance with BSI standards). There is an established

housing community here and there may be some objections to a Skate

Park from locals.

VI. Covering/lighting: This area would prove difficult to cover or light

though street lights would have some effect as security lighting.

However, streetlighting may not be powerful enough to allow for safe

skating outside of daylight hours.

VII. Noise Control: The area is busy and so noise from the park should

not cause a substantial problem.

VIII. Other comments : The provision of space for the Mother of Fair

Love School has an attendant clause that the school would not be

unduly disturbed. The skate park could be sited away from the

temporary buildings and would be far enough away so as not to disturb

the school.

IX. Costs: Groundworks. The ground level inside the walls would need

to be lowered and quite a lot of earth would need to be removed off

48

site. Estimated costs €7,000. Some lighting and security gate at the

access point, €3,000.

Concreting. 300 metres at €50 per metre, €15,000

Fencing. Lowering the ground level would facilitate using the existing

walls as boundary fencing and these are probably high enough and

secure enough as they are with no extra work needed.

Ramps. €40,000

Total €65,000

Appendices

1. INSURANCE -IPBMI

2. MATERIALS

3. OTHER POTENTIAL SITES

4. OTHER COUNCILS

5. CONTACTS

6. SAMPLE DESIGNS

49

50

APPENDIX 1. INSURANCE - IPBMI

The following are the major conditions of the provision of insurance for

skate parks from the Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurance.

* Site location: The site should be located in an area that has

reasonable visibility for the purposes of passive security. It should be

remembered that many of the skaters are between 13 and 16 years

old and so their safety and security, not just from accidents, but from

unwanted attention is paramount. Sites should be accessible by

emergency vehicles.

* Construction of equipment and its maintenance: the ramps and rails

used in the park should all comply with the BS specifications. Most of

the suppliers of such equipment now do so but it should be noted that

with the sudden development of 21 parks in the country new suppliers

will enter the market that may not be fully aware of the safety

specifications. The ground base of the park needs to be of a durable

and stable quality and in Ireland this generally has to be power floated

concrete base as other materials used elsewhere are not available

here.

* Fences: This is in order to discourage sudden entrance into or exit

from the skating area that could lead to accidents to skaters or passers

by. The fencing can be a simple corral type fence and not a full

security fence. Another aspect of the fencing is to limit dog fouling of

the skating area.

* Notice boards: At the entrance gates giving safety information

51

including how to report a hazard, and the location of first-aid facilities

and the nearest phone. Rules for the use of the park should be

outlined e.g. users must be over 10 years of age, users are

encouraged to wear safety gear, no cans or bottles allowed etc. A

disclaimer notice indemnifying the Council should be posted.

* Safety inspections: Daily inspections for litter, fouling, obstacles,

vandalism and weekly inspections of the ramps and rails by a Council

employee who has had some training in the work. A comprehensive

inspection by experts is required at least once a year. All inspections

must be documented and records kept.

Exact interpretations of each of the conditions are left to the discretion

of each local authority and there are sometimes wide discrepancies as

to how the above directions are put into practice. Legal advice should

be taken on these matters before going ahead with the Skate Park.

Further Information

The guidelines, titled: PAS 35:2002 "Specification for wheeled sports

facilities" can be ordered from British Standards Online. Alternatively,

from BSI Customer Services, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL,

England. Phone: +44 (0)20 8996 9001, fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7001,

email: info@bsi-global.com

52

APPENDIX 2. MATERIALS

There are three main materials that are used in making the ramps –

1. Concrete- Concrete is durable, relatively inexpensive, and can

sustain a lot damage. It will last the longest and requires the least

amount of maintenance. Some elements require precision, which can

be found with this material. Elements put in with concrete are

permanent and cannot be moved.

2. Wood- Wood is relatively inexpensive, easily constructed, and easy

to repair. Wood can be used as an original construction material or for

later repair during a ramp’s life span. It is not very durable and

requires a lot of maintenance, especially if the park receives heavy

usage, such as from BMX biking. Wood is prone to impact damage,

which can lead to increasing risk and likelihood of injuries. Wood gives

the Skate Park the option of moving elements so skaters do not

become bored with the park although moving elements may not be

cost efficient. Wood can also be slippy, and is best suited to indoor

facilities.

3. Steel: Steel requires low maintenance and has the mobility of wood.

Cost of this material will be higher than wood, however, it is more

sustainable than wood. There are also many companies that sell pre-

constructed steel ramps that can be assembled on site by non-

professionals. Steel is used for framing and ramp construction however

not as an overall surfacing unless covered by another materials such

as Skatelite or Ramp Skin. Steel is not a popular choice among

skaters.

53

Other Materials:

There are also two main proprietary products that are sometimes used

to cover the base materials on the ramps.

Skatelite- a surfacing material used to cover ramps and the skating

surface. It is built right onto the sub frames. This popular surface is

stable under humidity and temperate environments. It also cuts down

on maintenance costs; however, it is fairly expensive to install, and

skaters sometimes report that it makes obstacles too slippy.

Rhino-top – this is a proprietary surfacing used on many parks. It is

very durable, has good grip and is less injurious in the case of falls. It

is resistant to vandal attack and can be repaired. It is also suitable for

BMX biking on the ramps.

The ramps are usually assembled in sections of certain widths and if

required they can be bolted together to extend the size of the ramps.

Groundworks:

Asphalt- It is used to cover tennis courts and other areas that are

converted into skate parks by serving as a base pad. It tends to

expand in the heat – causing cracks, bumps and hollows which can

lead to accidents. Another problem is that in Ireland, the chippings

used in laying asphalt are too large and slow down the skaters far too

much.

Floated Concrete base – This is the most common material used and is

relatively cheap and easy to install. The park area is divided into

sections and a concrete bed is ‘power-floated’ over the entire surface.

This gives the required smoothness coupled with the durability needed.

54

APPENDIX 3 OTHER POTENTIAL SITES

As part of this study several sites were suggested by a variety of

people that have not been included in the list of favoured sites above.

The reasons for not including them are outlined below and one other

site (Nowlan Park) that has great potential for the future is

highlighted.

CASTLE PARK

The Castle Park is probably the most talked about site for such a park

locally and there is ample room for such a development with several

benefits such as location, aspect, noise control etc. However, the

number of potential protests that such a suggestion would stir up

across a range of interested parties - heritage groups for example,

would in our view present grave, unnecessary obstacles when there

are other sites available. Also the cost of developing such a site would

be quite high as, understandably, people would insist on a better

degree of finish and landscaping than elsewhere.

ST JAMES’S GREEN

The Authors felt that another suggested venue,that of St. James’s

Green, would not be practical. Locally there would be uproar at the

suggestion of such a park as was shown when it was suggested that

part of the Green’s fencing be removed to allow a better view of the

Abbey. Also because of the size of the Green, it would mean the whole

area would be taken over by the skate park to the exclusion of

anything else.

55

SCANLON PARK.

Another suggested site is Scanlon Park itself, as it would link the skate

park to other sports. The site is too far away from the City, and would

run the risk of being used only by skaters from Loughboy. We spoke to

Martin Gaffney, the manager of Scanlon Park and he also feels that the

distance from the town centre would be a major drawback to such a

park. The development of a skate park would probably be of about 300

square metres in size and though this could be sited in the car park of

Scanlon Park, this would, in turn, create parking difficulties on the

busier days at Scanlon Park, making an already difficult situation

worse.

NOWLAN PARK GAA GROUNDS

In the course of researching this report the Authors paid a visit to

Nowlan Park grounds. There they discovered a really magnificent

potential site that could be used as a skate park. Between the

turnstiles on the Hebron Road entrance and the back of the main stand

is an open area which is used by service and emergency vehicles.

There is ample space however, to develop a world-class park here,

which could have the potential of developing a ‘centre for excellence’

of wheeled sports in Kilkenny, providing the facilities and infrastructure

necessary for competitions and demonstrations. The park design

could incorporate steps, railings and so on that Nowlan Park require

on match days, so clever, innovative design would be required. This

area is very large, has sloping grounds, is already fenced off and could

be transformed into a large ‘bowl’ type skating area that could be the

best in the country. Such a development would enhance the assembly

area and not interfere with its very necessary primary function. It

could be used as a skate park at all times except when there are

matches on in the grounds. The Authors were due to make a

56

presentation to the GAA county board meeting in early December but

this was unfortunately cancelled with no other meeting to be held

within the time frame of this report. The County Secretary, Mr Pat

Dunphy, was generous enough to suggest that we make a presentation

at another time but understandably he could give no indication as to

what the reaction of the members might be towards such a suggestion.

The Authors feel that the Council should make some representation to

the Board as the potential to meet the needs of both the Council and

the Board is really too good to be left unexplored. Kilkenny city is well

established to hold national festivals and there is no reason that, if it

had the suitable skate park, it could not hold the national

championships for skating and BMX-ing on a regular basis.

A similar partnership exists within the UK – with international motor

sports stadium Rockingham Motor Sports Circuit (owned by BMW), and

Adrenalin Alley – a Skate Park and youth culture facility in Corby,

Northamptonshire. The opportunity to work in partnership with

Rockingham Motor Sports - was a dream come true for the skate

park project . The partnership enabled the project to more than

double its membership, and to become a focus for international

skaters and other youth culture events, such as arts projects, band

nights, and music workshops. In February 2003 Rockingham Motor

Sports made the decision to provide land to Corby Wheels Project

that would enable the construction of a major outdoor facility, set in

the prestigious grounds of the Motor Sports Stadium. This successful

model is one that could be repeated here at Nowlan Park.

57

APPENDIX 4 . OTHER COUNCILS

Waterford City. Have had a skate park for several years now and it

is based in the car park of the Council’s sports ground on the Cork

road. It is quite a distance from the City and many skaters don’t use it

regularly for this reason. It is also quite small and is used more by the

younger, inexperienced skaters than the older street skaters. As this

was built before the changes in the insurance rules it was felt that

there would have to be constant supervision and so this choice of site,

beside a sports facility allowed for supervision to be arranged more

readily. However, the Council is now also building another one in the

People’s Park which is more central and may prove more popular. In

the initial year of the Park there was an annual membership charged

but this did not persist. They have received a grant of €140,000 for the

new park.

Laois County Council. The Council here have a difficulty in finding a

park that would be a permanent home for the facility. They have

decided to use a small amount of equipment that will be mobile, using

Council workers and a truck with lifting gear. They are considering

moving the equipment about three times a year to other towns and so

give everyone a chance of the experience. A final decision on a

permanent site will depend on uptake and usage of this facility. They

have had very positive involvement with local skaters who have

formed their own club and will jointly manage the club with the help of

the Council. There will be a membership fee involved and a day rate

also. It is envisaged that this fee will be collected by older members of

the club who will operate a rota system of attendance. This system will

be reviewed after the first few months to see if it is working. Laois

County Council has been awarded a grant of €35,000 to develop this.

58

Donegal County Council. The Council has been awarded a grant of

€60,000 from the Department and intend to open a small park in

Bundoran. They have not selected a design as yet but will opt for the

higher fencing on legal advice even though they feel that erecting

fencing can present temptation to some vandals.

Offaly County Council. The Council only looked at one site that was

available in Tullamore. They will fence in the park and use security

cameras to control behaviour. It will be opened and closed by local

park warden on his/her daily rounds. They have been awarded a grant

of €72,000 and expect the park to cost about €100,000 in total. It will

be a small park at about 100 square meters only in size.

Louth County Council. They are planning to develop a small skate

park area in a larger development in Ashling Park in Dundalk. They

plan to have about 4 ramps placed there about the size of two tennis

courts. There will be a small corral type fence around the skating area

to prevent accidents and ‘bmx’ bikers form accessing the area at

speed. The Council will invest some extra money to the €40,000

already provided by the Department.

Clare County Council. This park will be based in Ennis alongside a

sports and amenity facility outside town. This site has been chosen by

the local skaters themselves as their favoured site. There are no

definite site plans drawn up as yet but an indicative cost of €150,000

has been agreed and the Department figure of €90,000 has been

approved. They will not be putting in place a fence of any size because

previous experience has shown this only to be a challenge to some

people to try and get into the site. There will be a concrete base to the

59

park and standard steel and laminate ramps. They hope to involve the

skaters with the final designs.

60

APPENDIX 5 . CONTACTS

Suppliers

Martin Barnett (Modney Concepts – mobile parks)

http://www.highlineSkate Parks.co.uk

00 44 (0)1366 377232

00 44 (0)7740 703 270

Fawns Skate Parks

Pat Boyle, or Andy Kelly

44 (0)1252 515199 Fax 44 (0)1252 515858

www.fawns.co.uk mailto:designer@fawns.co.uk

Fawns Recreational Services Ltd, Woodcot Court, 2a Woodcot

Gardens, Farnborough, Hants GU14 9RD

Wooden Delights Ltd (Supplier of Rhino Ramps in Ireland)Mr Christy HanburyMincloon, Galway. Tel (091) 525709 info@woodendelights.ie

County and City Councils

Waterford Corporation. Ms Jackie Freyne

Loais Co Co Ms Anne Marie Maher

Donegal Co Co Ms Aideen Doherty

Clare Co Co Mr Leonard Cleary

Louth Co Co Mr Noel Redmond

Offaly CO CO Mr David Minton

61

Wexford Co Co Mr Sean Cooke

Kilkenny Borough Councillors

Mr Andrew McGuinness

Mr Malcolm Noonan

Ms Betty Manning

Schools

Kieran’s College Fr Kieran Kennedy

Presentation Mr Cathal Cullen

Loreto Ms Helen Renehan

VEC Mr Roger Curran

Skate Parks

Kiltorcan, Thomastown Mr Tony Holland

Ramp City, Dublin Mr Karl Lennon

Wooden Works, Cork Natasha

Tramore Surf Centre Billy Butler

Corby Wheels Project/Adrenalin Alley, UK Mandy Young

The Edge SkateparkLeicester UK ‘Deano’

62

Organisations

GAA – Kilkenny County Board Mr Pat Dunphy

Scanlon Park Mr Martin Gaffney

O’Loughlin Gaels Mr Joe Malone

Dept of Environment Ms Evelyn Downes

Kilkenny Sports and Recreational Partnership

Ms Miriam Cleary & Nicola Keeshan

Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurance

Ms Lorraine Scanlon

Skaters

– at open meeting on 17th November

Vincent O’Brien

Aaron Sault

Kieran Carroll

Darren Murphy

Darren Kelly

Michael Walsh

Kevin Maher

Anthony Rafter

Individuals

Ms Marion McDonald, consultant.

63

APPENDIX 6 SAMPLE DESIGNS

The next few pages show some styles of skate parks that the Authors

consider representative of the type of park that would be appropriate

for Kilkenny. It was not possible to obtain drawings of indoor or ‘bowl’

type parks.

64