Boscombe surf reef is only 4 out of 10 says independent investigator (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Don't miss our new Youth Sport supplement every Thursday inside your Echo 
Daily Echo on FacebookAll of today's content from across the site, all in one place at bournemouthecho.co.uk/today
Boscombe surf reef is only 4 out of 10 says independent investigator
8:30am Tuesday 18th May 2010 in
A MARINE expert yesterday confirmed what its critics have been saying for months – Europe’s first artificial surf reef is not working in the way civic chiefs had envisaged.
Dr Mark Davidson from Plymouth University gave the £4 million Boscombe tourist attraction a score of just four out of ten in a scale of its success.
Revealing his long-awaited findings, following six months of monitoring, Dr Davidson said: “It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The reef has produced a new, more exciting and challenging surfing wave.
“But it falls short on a number of criteria. The length of the ride – 40 metres or less – is a long way short of the promised 65 metres. Another area where the reef is falling short is consistency.”
It had been expected that the reef would at least match the beach in terms of the number of surfing days. But surfing conditions are less consistent than on the beach.
Speaking before a council briefing, Dr Davidson said he had ridden the waves at Boscombe while measuring the reef’s effectiveness.
He said: “I took a comprehensive set of measurements, recording my position as I moved around the reef.
Factfile
THE £3 million surf reef is an integral part of the Boscombe Spa Village project which looks likely to end up costing more than £11.3 million; a far cry from the £8.29 million estimate and an increase of almost £300,000 in the past year.
While controversy continues to rage over the success of the reef another aspect of the regeneration scheme is also proving a headache for civic chiefs.
The designer surf pods are proving tough to sell and the council is considering borrowing money to make up the shortfall.
So far only eight of 43 Wayne Hemingway-designed pods have been bought, prompting the council to reduce prices and switch selling agents.
But, despite the soaring costs and persistent speculation surrounding the reef’s effectiveness, the project is still being hailed a success having won a string of awards, boosted visitor numbers and breathed much-needed new life into Boscombe seafront.
"I measured how long the ride was, relative to the reef, and collected data which I used to assess its success.”
Dr Davidson stressed that the number of people who can use the reef is limited, adding: “It was meant to be for intermediate surfers but it is suited to more advanced surfers.”
However, he believes the reef can be improved and, with investment, put right.
Read Dr Davidson's criteria and assesment here: Artificial Surf Reef - 6 month assesment.doc
“Boscombe is a particularly difficult location because of its wave climate; it was always going to be a challenging project. Possibly public expectation was a little bit too optimistic and promises made were unrealistic.”
Bournemouth council’s service director for leisure Roger Brown said: “Obviously there is an element of some disappointment but I always thought the reef would probably need some modifications.
“Our contractors ASR have agreed with the performance assessment and are committed to carrying out this work.
“It’s not just their final payment of £150,000 that is at stake; it’s also their reputation. I’m optimistic that the ride length can be improved, the take-off speed can be reduced and surfing can be made less difficult.
The surf reef at low tide...
“We need a licence to carry out further work, ASR have to sort out visas to bring personnel here from New Zealand and additional geotextile bags may have to be manufactured and brought to the UK.
“It’s possible that it could happen this summer but it could be next spring before we’ve jumped through all the necessary hoops.”
Comments(91)
Glashen
says...
9:24am Tue 18 May 10
If ASR cannot or will not meet their commitments the council should pursue legal action against them. Sadly the procrastination over publishing the report has just delayed acceptance of the facts and make the council look inept.
Roger Brown stated this AM on The Today programme that this was a high risk innovative project I have always accepted this, but it is now essential the council gets a grip on ASR and makes the project work and within the budget now agreed.
pd7
says...
9:31am Tue 18 May 10
The big question I have is why someone did not go down the tip get a scrap bath , 2 poly bags , a bit of sand and a bucket of water and try it .
It does not work.
pd7
says...
9:31am Tue 18 May 10
The big question I have is why someone did not go down the tip get a scrap bath , 2 poly bags , a bit of sand and a bucket of water and try it .
It does not work.
Glashen
says...
9:40am Tue 18 May 10
"Fact - ASR had to remove a reef in the USA as it was dangerous (same reasons ours should be funnily enough)"
Could you post details of this, the only reef I am aware of being removed in the USA is Osborrne Reef, Ft Lauderdale, Florida, which was constructed in the 1970s using old tyres, I was not aware ASR even existed then so it would be difficult to blame them for it.
ben111
says...
10:28am Tue 18 May 10
Leonard Lodger
says...
10:32am Tue 18 May 10
Roger, are you saying you thought it wouldn't work? After months of deliberation, meetings behind closed doors, secret reports not to mention the money spent never to be recovered.... what have the council achieved? They were sold an idea by Dave Weight, backed up with scientific endorsements from Kerry Black (in hindsight apparently unapplicable to the conditions of the area) and pushed through with blind optomism by a council, that transpires, had no realistic idea of what they were doing.
Yes Roger, I too am disappointed. Disappointed that the surfers in the area lost their break at the pier when it was shortened to make way for a walk that goes no where (Pier of the year indeed). I'm disappointed the money wasted on the reef wasn't used where it's desperately needed to improve Boscombe. I'm disappointed the Overstrand Pod complex can't sell it's beach pods. I'm disappointed the much needed car parking was handed over to a private developer. I'm disappointed you have the crass cheek to voice your concerns so late in the day. How many residents will share your disappointment when the reef project is shelved and the money wasted could have been used to keep front line sevices for the community. I'm disappointed those responsible for this fiasco don't do the decent thing and resign.
Trifecta
says...
10:58am Tue 18 May 10
ben111
says...
10:59am Tue 18 May 10
BmthNewshound
says...
11:00am Tue 18 May 10
ekimnoslen
says...
11:01am Tue 18 May 10
MJD
says...
11:11am Tue 18 May 10
TinyLegacy
says...
11:23am Tue 18 May 10
FOSF
says...
11:32am Tue 18 May 10
MisterE
says...
11:33am Tue 18 May 10
High Treason
says...
11:34am Tue 18 May 10
Glashen wrote:Is this what you are looking for?
Quoted from Schooners Post "Fact - ASR had to remove a reef in the USA as it was dangerous (same reasons ours should be funnily enough)" Could you post details of this, the only reef I am aware of being removed in the USA is Osborrne Reef, Ft Lauderdale, Florida, which was constructed in the 1970s using old tyres, I was not aware ASR even existed then so it would be difficult to blame them for it.
http://www.surfrider
-southbay.org/pdf/AS
R_Removal_FAQ.pdf
Was Charlie
says...
11:37am Tue 18 May 10
Bob49
says...
11:39am Tue 18 May 10
.......... it will also update councillors on the sales of the designer beach pods, which have been slower than expected, and the sales of the flats in Barratt’s Honeycombe Beach development, which have taken longer than anticipated to generate a windfall payment for the council."
So where is the rest of the report ? That will highlight the REAL failure of this sham. The useless sandbags are a minor distraction. So, please tell us how much of a shortfall is there in income from the beach pod sales. How much will need to be borrowed by the council to cover that loss. What services will need to be cut to cover repayments on those loans.
The reef farce has produced much wailing and gnashing of teeth, endlerssly asking how we ended up here. Yet a bigger problem is again being quietly ignored.
The absolute minimum shortfall is estimated at £3m. With no likely sales forthcoming and the Moneycombe development sales grinding to a halt the shortfall will grow.
We were told this nonsense would return a profit of £300,000 - in fact it has now run up £3m in debt, with an open ended bill that will rise year by year.
Any wonder the council want us to focus our attention on this idiocy rather than discuss the huge debt they have run up, on a gross failing.
Rally
says...
11:40am Tue 18 May 10
Interesting that according to the BBC: "The findings came from experts at Plymouth University who assessed the quality of waves enhanced by the underwater creation over six months.
The team found the surf reef only achieved four of its 11 objectives."
Given the mind-numbingly incompetent way Bournemouth Council has dealt with the 'reef' from the outset, I can't help but feel that it is now, how shall I say, distorting this latest information (or at least allowing it to be distorted) to suit its own ends.
Sam Shepherd
says...
11:55am Tue 18 May 10
High Treason wrote:That reef - Pratte's Reef in California - was not designed or built by ASR so it is, as Glashen says, unfair to blame it on them.
Glashen wrote:Is this what you are looking for?
Quoted from Schooners Post "Fact - ASR had to remove a reef in the USA as it was dangerous (same reasons ours should be funnily enough)" Could you post details of this, the only reef I am aware of being removed in the USA is Osborrne Reef, Ft Lauderdale, Florida, which was constructed in the 1970s using old tyres, I was not aware ASR even existed then so it would be difficult to blame them for it.
http://www.surfrider
-southbay.org/pdf/AS
R_Removal_FAQ.pdf
It was designed by a man called David Skelly for the Surfrider Foundation and was removed because it didn't work. The ASR in the link refers to the words Artificial Surf Reef, which maybe where the confusion is.
If that's not the one you were referring to, Schooner, can you let us know which one you meant?
Thanks!
Gastines
says...
11:55am Tue 18 May 10
boardstiff
says...
12:09pm Tue 18 May 10
Sam Shepherd wrote:Sorry Sam - run that by me one more time ... which one was Pratte's Reef?
High Treason wrote:That reef - Pratte's Reef in California - was not designed or built by ASR so it is, as Glashen says, unfair to blame it on them.
Glashen wrote:Is this what you are looking for?
Quoted from Schooners Post "Fact - ASR had to remove a reef in the USA as it was dangerous (same reasons ours should be funnily enough)" Could you post details of this, the only reef I am aware of being removed in the USA is Osborrne Reef, Ft Lauderdale, Florida, which was constructed in the 1970s using old tyres, I was not aware ASR even existed then so it would be difficult to blame them for it.
http://www.surfrider
-southbay.org/pdf/AS
R_Removal_FAQ.pdf
It was designed by a man called David Skelly for the Surfrider Foundation and was removed because it didn't work. The ASR in the link refers to the words Artificial Surf Reef, which maybe where the confusion is.
If that's not the one you were referring to, Schooner, can you let us know which one you meant?
Thanks!
Glashen
says...
12:16pm Tue 18 May 10
Sam Shepherd wrote:Thanks - Sam, The Prattes Reef removal is certainly interesting but as you say not ASR's responsibility.
High Treason wrote:That reef - Pratte's Reef in California - was not designed or built by ASR so it is, as Glashen says, unfair to blame it on them.
Glashen wrote:Is this what you are looking for?
Quoted from Schooners Post "Fact - ASR had to remove a reef in the USA as it was dangerous (same reasons ours should be funnily enough)" Could you post details of this, the only reef I am aware of being removed in the USA is Osborrne Reef, Ft Lauderdale, Florida, which was constructed in the 1970s using old tyres, I was not aware ASR even existed then so it would be difficult to blame them for it.
http://www.surfrider
-southbay.org/pdf/AS
R_Removal_FAQ.pdf
It was designed by a man called David Skelly for the Surfrider Foundation and was removed because it didn't work. The ASR in the link refers to the words Artificial Surf Reef, which maybe where the confusion is.
If that's not the one you were referring to, Schooner, can you let us know which one you meant?
Thanks!
It is probably inevitable that a project of this type would be over-hyped, it's performance is also well below acceptable levels and the council's management of the project has clearly fallen short.
But to those who say it should never have been started do they have an alternative which wouldn't just be Pie in the Sky, most do accept the seafront is improved. I believe ASR thought the reef would work, of course it was never going to turn Boscombe into Hawaii. Its actual performance is clearly not in anyones interest, as I said I believe the council should pursue ASR to make the reef meet its specification and within the budget.
rainbowkisses
says...
12:29pm Tue 18 May 10
tweakfreak
says...
12:48pm Tue 18 May 10
elliots
says...
12:48pm Tue 18 May 10
tweakfreak
says...
12:57pm Tue 18 May 10
Bob49
says...
1:04pm Tue 18 May 10
There are NO 13ft waves, NO 60 plus full time jobs, NO upmarket retail outlets on the pier, NO attractions for families, NO where to park.
It is, as it was always intended to be, an exclusive development that makes use of a wonderful natural resource for those who can afford an overpriced holiday flat. That exclusivity is dependant upon it being that - exclusive. Taken in that context the rest falls into place.
The ridiculous cover stories of it being a catalyst to spark the regeneration of the rest of Boscombe and an income generater by providing 'surf bookings' at local guest houses and hotels have been cruelly exposed.
What is needed is a detailed account of where the money has gone and how the council will fund the year on debts this farce has run up. If anyone thinks the £3m debt is the end to this farce - let me give a warning, it is just the beginning. When the true costs and liabilities do come out then the few quid loss on the reef will be seen as chicken feed in comparison.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
2:00pm Tue 18 May 10
Be there now a mass exodus of ‘PSHs’, heads held in shame, from office, be the ‘World leaders in artificial reefs’ already be packing suitable attire for a lengthy summer in Boscombe? I surmise not!! Many a Brethren ‘Elder’ hath warned of darker reasoning behind such an ill-conceived idea as an artificial reef and I do right agree, it be a distracting (albeit expensive) ‘phantom’.
My quartermaster doth reason that said final payment to ASR may well stay in this hemisphere although possibly not in Brethrens own ‘coffers’. That if yer South Seas pirates do already owe many more gold coins to you by way of re-imbursements (auditing findings?) then thar be no such incentive to return and (possibly?) rectify, my apologies, tweak, stamp me ivory wrong again, modify blast me planking, ‘Optimise’ said reef?? So much more to be said re this issue yet without repeating oneself.
Ahoy ‘Schooners’
I like the cut of yer jib Sir, well spoke and me thoughts exactly.
Ahoy ‘reefskeptic’
Har, it do seem a ‘higher’ authority did become involved (watch that space?) Also do forgive my humour but I do sense an ‘Award’ coming yer way as possessing the most ‘innovative’ pseudonym in Boscombe, do yer think yer PSHs will hang it in their trophy ‘cabinet?’
Ahoy ‘sherlock_holmes
Greetings my friend, I’ve no wish to disturb yer thoughts on any new cases thee be working on, guess yer bin involved in solving other ‘infringements’ of late or be ye a gathering more evidence of ‘Weights Elephant’ (almost scandal now)? My regards to yer colleague & confidant Mr Watson.
Ahoy ‘PTBarnum’
Can ye not take pity on (soon to be un-employed?)? Mr Roger Brown offering him a position within thy ‘circus?’ for in part must contain an element of truth (even from those lips,) that he be an expert in the ‘jumping through hoops’.
Gordon Cann
says...
2:00pm Tue 18 May 10
At the very least it requires a formal investigation by the National Audit Office, made on a proposal by Leader of the Council
simonhumby
says...
2:11pm Tue 18 May 10
4 out of 10 is too generous
The criteria that really matters is where surfers surf - not on the reef.
It's not a 'partial success', it's an abject failure.
Gordon Cann
says...
2:13pm Tue 18 May 10
'Cameron vows to cut waste spending'
perhaps one of the towns two Conservative MPs could invite him to see this project'
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
2:26pm Tue 18 May 10
Be it my math that gone aground!! Yer article ‘Do you agree with surf reef’s four out of 10 score?’ (as printed elsewhere in yer publication) do state thou asked people if they be in agreement with experts assessment of ‘4/10’ success of said reef. Thee (echo) did print 4 reactions, all 4 spoke adversely of it, I be still reasoning why newsprint be taken up with ‘that article’ (considering though has printed another two) are thee seeking ‘redemption’ perhaps?
sashabubble
says...
2:35pm Tue 18 May 10
HughJarse
says...
2:41pm Tue 18 May 10
MisterE wrote:Well said 'Mister E' - my sentiments exactly. Sadly, the Bureaucrats will not see it that way. "Sale of goods act" - or is that too simplistic as well?
So, do we get 60% of our money back then...?
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
3:21pm Tue 18 May 10
Be it just an overlooked point but Marine expert Dr Mark Davidson awarded said reef 4 marks out of 10. Yet fails to elaborate on exactly what be the 4 ‘acceptable’ points and what be the 6 failed aspects, be I to assume this information be surfacing within the written report? ‘The reef has produced a new, more exciting and challenging wave’ (singular) this I do take to refer to the 6week wave? Also yet again yer reef be acclaimed as an advanced surfing attraction? I do know there be many a experienced, talented and honest surfer nationally and closer to home that be sat reading these comment with a wry smile of despair when others (non-surfers, well salt water surfing) are ‘Waxing’ lyrical about its success.
Adrian Fudge
says...
3:40pm Tue 18 May 10
Trifecta wrote:I have never been known to be shy
Pushed through by the Lib.Dem council and they totally ignored the many dissenting voices amongst the local residents. From the council library 2005: "The Cabinet Member for the Quality Services and Value for Money portfolio was concerned that whilst considering the views of residents the proposed scheme should not be delayed" And this is repeated throughout the whole shabby charade. Who was the Cabinet Member mentioned above? No need to be shy Alderman.
Perhaps you might like to correct the impression you are trying to portray to to accord with the truth
I was the only Cabinet Member to not vote in favour of the reef when it was decided to progress it at the Cabinet meeting held at the The Chine Hotel because I was not convinced it would work and not be the draw that was being suggested
However having corporate responsibility with a decision having been taken by cabinet it was my duty to progress that decision
Having said that I would like to point out that at that stage the project was still being evaluated at a cost of circa £1M and the negotiations were progressed by the current administration who apparently got a better scheme and signed the contract for a cost circa £3M
Just so there is no misrepresntation ,as you are attempting, I was not in favour of the scheme at any cost let alone £3.5M
As an aside I can recall my comment at the time that the project was like standing on Boscombe Pier and throwing pound coins into the sea to form the reef. Obviously with over double the amount of pound coins spent on the reef a much bigger and better reef could have been achieved!
Adrian Fudge
says...
4:07pm Tue 18 May 10
Trifecta wrote:I have now located that minute and it goes to show how far you will go to distort the truth
Pushed through by the Lib.Dem council and they totally ignored the many dissenting voices amongst the local residents. From the council library 2005: "The Cabinet Member for the Quality Services and Value for Money portfolio was concerned that whilst considering the views of residents the proposed scheme should not be delayed" And this is repeated throughout the whole shabby charade. Who was the Cabinet Member mentioned above? No need to be shy Alderman.
The wording you mention refers to the whole scheme and the phrase you detailed goes on to say "he submitted a proposed amendment relating to the surf ref to enable this to be concidered in more detail LATER".
This was so that the reef wasn't agreed at that time but the scheme as a whole would not be delayed
perhaps you would agree that your comments are not based on fact but on an attemot at a political slur
woolamai
says...
4:29pm Tue 18 May 10
woolamai
says...
4:42pm Tue 18 May 10
....what I said all along. I take great comfort from having been vindicated in the face of the incessant whineing of the usual crowd and pointless views of the less advanced surfers. Huge smile on my face.
Xchurch-man
says...
5:00pm Tue 18 May 10
But there again thats why they are CONservatives!!
Sam Shepherd
says...
5:02pm Tue 18 May 10
But shortform: they're all related to surfing, and it fails on constistency, numbers, surf quality and some wave quality criteria. You'll be able to see shortly.
Bluewit
says...
5:08pm Tue 18 May 10
WIGGINSv
says...
5:16pm Tue 18 May 10
e about the reef.
Still it is always handy to know how to swim and surf if you live in this area.
petercastle
says...
6:10pm Tue 18 May 10
An attraction is where a mass group of people gather to see. The reef produces a wave a size of a skipping rope. Therefore consider it a failure.
IT should be 0. 4 million down the drain and this money should of been used to create a people atmosphere and functions on the beach. the money also could of created business centers with awards grants for young unemployed, graduates and rehab individuals to use david Lloyd and the former BandQ sites to start business and create work in Bournemouth.
teddyonetwo
says...
6:14pm Tue 18 May 10
Surely someone on the inside has made a lot of money on this disgraceful sale of the towns future, but the cost to the town demands an official inquiry.
It would appear to the layman as fraudulent to the tax payers of the town, if not only turning a beauty spot of the natural coast into a health and safety risk. Selling out the towns people and asking them to pay millions to have their own land stolen.
Some of the Council must be asked the question, How could you go so low to sell out those you are meant to serve?
Bob49
says...
6:46pm Tue 18 May 10
This begs the question -
Does Sealutions have any liability for ASR contracts ?
if not then how much will it cost to remove this safety risk ? What council budget will this money come from.
It would be easy to laugh at this absurdity. Easy to enjoy a bit of smug satisfaction at those who piled in, buying 'off plan' hoping to make money out of the Moneycombe Chine sham.
But someone will have to pay for clearing up the mess. If that is to be us, the local taxpayers, then we should know how much are we going to have to cough up.
We should also be told what provisions will be put in place to stop this type of charade happening again.
teddyonetwo
says...
7:01pm Tue 18 May 10
The Dispatches TV show should be interesting.
ajj-dorset
says...
7:19pm Tue 18 May 10
High Treason
says...
9:56pm Tue 18 May 10
Paul Humber
says...
10:09pm Tue 18 May 10
http://magicseaweed.
com/photoLab/viewPho
to.php?photoId=13368
0&browseSession=cce8
716cf343b86deb42f952
b204fe7b
I have never seen a picture of a better wave in Bournemouth bay...and taken within the first year of completion of the reef. I cant wait to see what it throws up next autumn. I am baffled how there is even an argument about whether it works or not. It's a challenging wave... forces you to progress your surfing - all the whingers need to step up - or go buy a bodyboard!
(but to be honoest I'd rather they stayed on the beach whinging about it).
woolamai
says...
10:09pm Tue 18 May 10
Happily in couple of days it will be old news, or even before that some prat will put up a list of named individuals again and the posts will get taken down.
In reality though it was all over ages ago - ASR/Sealutions stuck two fingers up as they left last year with 3 million shiny ones in their wallets, the council could care less and we have had our whale in it's final configuration for 9 months now. There will be no tweaks, no law suits, no refunds, no sackings, no resignations.
I'm sure the Echo will probably run the odd story just to poke the termite nest, reporting how the discussions between Sealutions and council are ongoing until even they get bored of trying to get a rise out of you lot. They could probably keep that fun going for years.
Surf report for North coasts of Devon and Cornwall is looking good again this weekend so another early start for me. And the water is warming up finally - no need for boots and gloves and hoods anymore - should be fun. The Boscombe forecast isn't looking quite so good but at least you have the attractions on the pier - ha ha ha ha ha ha.
woolamai
says...
10:28pm Tue 18 May 10
But not to complain - the more they moan the less people will be tempted to get out there and that means more waves like the one in the photo for those who are.
plastic
says...
10:43pm Tue 18 May 10
FOSF
says...
11:28pm Tue 18 May 10
.
Regarding Mr. Fudge's comments. Did not the Lib-Dems quickly sign the contracts immediatley prior to the elections in 2007, to ensure they got through. Likewise the same with the casino. I can remember reading something along those lines which caused some controversy.
jinglebell
says...
12:07am Wed 19 May 10
elliots wrote:Have you not been well love? The swell must have been in your head - no swell of 15 foot - total nonsense. No "dudes" smiling etc. on "awesome" etc. - but also a pretty emabarrasing attempt at passing yourself off as a surfer.
Wave face heights topped out at 15 feet last week and are expected to stay around for the next few days ...also dudes smiling in and out on awesome six foot barrels.
Bob49
says...
12:18am Wed 19 May 10
"like flies round a cow's backside"
perhaps not flies, though ..........
jinglebell
says...
12:21am Wed 19 May 10
Avengerboy
says...
4:07am Wed 19 May 10
Leonard Lodger
says...
8:07am Wed 19 May 10
“However these waves are extremely challenging, do not give the length of ride we would expect, and are not as frequent as required.”
He added that the project had seen a 32% increase in visitor numbers since installation of the reef, with house prices increasing from 20% below the Bournemouth average to 5% above. "
More lies Roger....... you should be sacked for dishonesty.
Trifecta
says...
8:32am Wed 19 May 10
belafonte
says...
8:57am Wed 19 May 10
Did it put Boscombe on the map = YES
Was it paid for out of public funds, NO.
Did the reporters car get nicked ?
No it didn't.
It might not have produced Bondi, but on balance its a success. The Council have made some dreadful, unforgivable decisions in the past (eg. Winter Garden) but good on-'em this time for pioneering an innovative regeneration project.
Norman Mead
says...
9:46am Wed 19 May 10
Trifecta wrote:I'm with Mr Fudge on this one. It's perfectly clear that he asked for the reef to be considered in detail later and not decided upon at the same time as the rest of the scheme. I think you owe him an apology.
@Mr Fudge, semantics. You claim that you were referring to the scheme as a whole and somehow this does not include the reef!!! It either includes the reef or it is not a "whole".Is it? Do you deny that you and some of your colleagues pushed this whole scheme through despite massive opposition from local residents ALL who correctly forecast what has come to pass? As for this being somehow a political slur. Purlease.
Bob49
says...
10:42am Wed 19 May 10
Did it put Boscombe on the map = YES
Was it paid for out of public funds, NO."
Yep, at £15m plus a cafe and toilets make a great place to chill out. Boscombe was already on the map. It always has been. Sadly with nothing there it won't attract any extra visitors - in fact less due to the greatly reduced parking.
Yes, it has been paid for out of public funds. I presume if I sell something that belongs to you the proceeds are your funds. Also with the shortfall due to the lack of sales of the surfpods and the Barratt flats the council is going to have to ask us find another three million pounds - we were told there would be a £300k surplus
It is ill informed tosh such as yours that has allowed this farce to get this far.
Trifecta
says...
12:52pm Wed 19 May 10
jamiesnook87
says...
11:00pm Wed 19 May 10
Pretty much NONE of the people including the professor have actually surfed the reef since it has been built, so how can you comment??
I am a bodyboarder and have surfed the reef a handful of times now in varying quality of swells from wind-chop to groundswells, yes it is a challenging wave but on its day its a very good wave... Bournemouth needs a half-decent wave as all our other breaks are sloppy and weak the majority of the time, proving no challenge for improvement.
If this wave is changed so that it is easier to surf and becomes a mellow bank it will be over-crowded and a complete waste of money because you will basically create a similar wave form to those that currently occur on the local beaches anyway.. whats the point?
There is only so much you can construct to create a good artificial wave without relying on the quality of mother natures swell and personally being someone that has actually used the reef and has surfed around the world for over 8 years I think ASR and the council have done as good a job as can be done in the region.
I am gald my tax payers money went on this scheme.. finally I get something I actually like to use. Its alright for all these people to comment saying its a waste of your money, but to be honest I think speed bumps, street lights, play parks are a waste of my money and put up with it.. its good that the council support something for the active, fit generation to inspire and encourage improvement of a sport in an ageing region where all the old people have to do is moan.
I'm sure most bodyboarders who have surfed this reef will agree I don't think it can be improved, we are happy with it as it is and to lessen the challenge will overcrowd it and cause more problems with inexperienced surfers! It was never meant for beginners and so it should stay that way.. that's what the beach breaks are for.
Please don't comment on whether it does or does not work if you have not surfed it!!!!
jamiesnook87
says...
11:16pm Wed 19 May 10
I could go on and on but at the end of the day if you don't surf, you have no comprehension of how these things work so you cannot argue a case its just a shame you have been mis-lead by the media getting some bogus representatives opinions... again
woolamai
says...
7:13am Thu 20 May 10
Trifecta
says...
8:22am Thu 20 May 10
time nor Tide
says...
8:54am Thu 20 May 10
.
However there are some small defects in your argument.
.
Firsly the professor stated clearly that his appraisal was partly based on him actually going out and surfing on the reef when you state he did not.
.
Secondly such expenditure on just three or four users leaves many other hour by hour needs uncatered for. The surf on the reef is a month by month or season by season occurance and you will not suffer greatly if it does not happen. But there are a great number of serious issues that effect the most vulnerable in society on an hour by hour basis and they suffer by a lack of resources. Thats not thinking of the average citizen that has real and legitimate claims on public expenditure for their own sporting preferences.
.
I agree with the argument that a stimulated economy due to a certain, consistant and reasonable wave will produce compounding benefits for all. But that sadly has not occurred. Thus it is a flawed argument to defend something of great cost that does not pay back in a compounding way. That is what usually determines large public expenditure. It is supposed to provide compounding benefits for all.
'
I am happy for you to enjoy what is there , but i regret that many, many other needs for that expenditure could have been satisfied. This could have been done in a way where the investment did return -not continually deplete funds that have now to be found from somewhere?
Are you willing to pay for the privilidge of surfing on such an exclusive facility? That would be only fair as that can help the vulnerable persons within society get smaller but important needs satisfied.
I wish you well with your surfing and yes you do have a legitimate right to expect surfing facilities that pay for themselves and that many people can also enjoy.
.
I' m sorry though that I cannot agree such expenditure is sensible for just a few individuals -that seems rather selfish to expect it as well?
.
cheers and enjoy the ocean where all can also enjoy it.
woolamai
says...
12:42pm Thu 20 May 10
I've heard of whingeing poms but this is ludicrous!!!!
Is the complaining as bad all over England or is it just because there are so many fossils in this town?
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
3:13pm Thu 20 May 10
Can anyone of ye confirm a right piece of disturbing news that appears to be held ‘behind closed doors’….. ‘Mr Roger Brown’ is being promoted???. I do be afeard this no joke.
woolamai
says...
3:32pm Thu 20 May 10
Rally
says...
7:08pm Thu 20 May 10
Leonard Lodger wrote:" added that the project had seen a 32% increase in visitor numbers since installation of the reef, ..."
Telegraph 18-5-10, "Roger Brown, of Bournemouth council, said: “It is clear that the reef is capable of producing surfable waves. “However these waves are extremely challenging, do not give the length of ride we would expect, and are not as frequent as required.” He added that the project had seen a 32% increase in visitor numbers since installation of the reef, with house prices increasing from 20% below the Bournemouth average to 5% above. " More lies Roger....... you should be sacked for dishonesty.
32% of what, Mr Brown?
As it stands, this figure means little.
We could be looking at, for example, 25 visitors one day and 33 on another.
And of these numbers of visitors, how many where there for the 'reef' and how many were on the Boscombe seafront for some other reason?
yankee
says...
7:11pm Thu 20 May 10
What a joke.
Max Green
says...
8:22pm Thu 20 May 10
What is going on here.
Secondly, I don't know what you guys have to complain about. The reef created a new wave far better than anything in Boscombe.
But more importantly, the reef put Boscombe under international spotlight. An Imax theatre could never do that even if it had been successful. 3 mil is a scant amount for an investment that has produced this much interest.
Its ridiculous how local media interests, council, and even residents try to diminish its success...
Hornedreaper
says...
8:24pm Thu 20 May 10
woolamai wrote:SPOT ON!!
STOP MOANING.
I've heard of whingeing poms but this is ludicrous!!!!
Is the complaining as bad all over England or is it just because there are so many fossils in this town?
whingeyminge
says...
8:32pm Thu 20 May 10
Rally
says...
9:17pm Thu 20 May 10
Max Green wrote:Max Green wrote: "But more importantly, the reef put Boscombe under international spotlight. An Imax theatre could never do that even if it had been successful. 3 mil is a scant amount for an investment that has produced this much interest."
Hold on, did anyone look at the monitoring report. The numbers add up to 6 out of 11...not 4. What is going on here. Secondly, I don't know what you guys have to complain about. The reef created a new wave far better than anything in Boscombe. But more importantly, the reef put Boscombe under international spotlight. An Imax theatre could never do that even if it had been successful. 3 mil is a scant amount for an investment that has produced this much interest. Its ridiculous how local media interests, council, and even residents try to diminish its success...
Yes, Max, but is this 'international interest' generating any of the hard cash much needed to balance the books?
Do you - or anybody else here, for that matter - seriously believe that this Media coverage (some of it good, most of it bad) is going to encourage people from abroad to visit the Boscombe seafront?
The current overall apparent failure of the 'reef', the overpriced non-selling/renting Surfpods and Barratt apartments, and the now 'gravel pit' of a beach do not, I feel, bode well for Boscombe's future.
It is quite simply ludicrous to describe the project as a success based only on a blip in the number of visitors, and the extolments of a handful of surfers.
whingeyminge
says...
9:29pm Thu 20 May 10
Bournemouth was a decent place once - clean toilets, proper china and people new how to control their dogs. And now look at it. No-one will come here for a holiday when they have to step through piles of dog muck to get to the beach. You mark my words.
Rally
says...
10:02pm Thu 20 May 10
Hornedreaper wrote:But 'woolamai' is happy to whinge about people whinging ...
woolamai wrote: STOP MOANING. I've heard of whingeing poms but this is ludicrous!!!! Is the complaining as bad all over England or is it just because there are so many fossils in this town?SPOT ON!!
I'm sure there's an irony in this somewhere.
whingeyminge
says...
10:16pm Thu 20 May 10
We will moan as much as we like. Oh yes we'll moan alright. That's what made us the nation we are. They can't moan like us in Australia or Germany or Canada oh no. Wait till that World Cup - oh we'll be moaning then. And the Olympics - oh yes just you wait we'll be moaning about that. And the airshow - no parking, no toilets, too expensive, too sunny, too wet, oh yes, and Wimbledon you can bet your last penny we'll be moaning about that - flipping Scots, not since Fred Perry, and the skirts they wear. You never saw Virginia Wade in something like that - their mothers must have a turn everytime they see them. Rally is right - in our day they covered themselves up.
Well done Rally - you stick up for us old folk.
reefskeptic
says...
10:59pm Thu 20 May 10
Unfortunately the results and reality show where its coming from.
Less S&B and more proven consistant and sustainable achievement points out of 10 please!
Its behaviour unbecomming when real accomplishment is needed, thank you!
Max Green
says...
12:12am Fri 21 May 10
Rally wrote:Much of the succes and increase in revenue is hard to quantify in dollars and cents. Its the advertising revenue, the petrol increases by visits from outsiders, the hopefully continued sale of property, and yes international attention that will become an important long term investment.
Max Green wrote:Max Green wrote: "But more importantly, the reef put Boscombe under international spotlight. An Imax theatre could never do that even if it had been successful. 3 mil is a scant amount for an investment that has produced this much interest."
Hold on, did anyone look at the monitoring report. The numbers add up to 6 out of 11...not 4. What is going on here. Secondly, I don't know what you guys have to complain about. The reef created a new wave far better than anything in Boscombe. But more importantly, the reef put Boscombe under international spotlight. An Imax theatre could never do that even if it had been successful. 3 mil is a scant amount for an investment that has produced this much interest. Its ridiculous how local media interests, council, and even residents try to diminish its success...
Yes, Max, but is this 'international interest' generating any of the hard cash much needed to balance the books?
Do you - or anybody else here, for that matter - seriously believe that this Media coverage (some of it good, most of it bad) is going to encourage people from abroad to visit the Boscombe seafront?
The current overall apparent failure of the 'reef', the overpriced non-selling/renting Surfpods and Barratt apartments, and the now 'gravel pit' of a beach do not, I feel, bode well for Boscombe's future.
It is quite simply ludicrous to describe the project as a success based only on a blip in the number of visitors, and the extolments of a handful of surfers.
Look at the bbc recent press release...http://www
.bournemouth.gov.uk/
News/press_office/Pr
ess_Releases/May_201
0/BSV_Results_so_far
.asp
reefskeptic
says...
12:46am Fri 21 May 10
It may become the local financial and reputation meltdown because all the eggs were kept in one reef basket when the handle broke. I cant hep but wonder about - when a astute experienced councilor suggested risk-free strategies, was the term "unworkable" used because the contractor was unwilling to contract under such usual terms? Does this amount to a form of duress used on councils officers?
yes the long term benefits will be difficult to forsee but at least a process is in play to mitigate the reefs shortcommings. Based on track record i still remain,
.
yours sincerely,
.
sceptical but as always hopeful.
jinglebell
says...
1:40am Fri 21 May 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
12:28pm Fri 21 May 10
woolamai wrote:Ahoy ‘woolamai’
And so what if he is...you gonna moan about that as well?
I be wondering how long ye could hold thy breath afore surfacing to spout even more ‘mind wandering’ falsehoods, it unusual that thee be floundering in daylight me thought you only played on a moonlit wave?
woolamai
says...
4:47pm Fri 21 May 10
reefskeptic
says...
9:15am Sat 22 May 10
http://www.stuff.co.
nz/business/industri
es/3726274/Raglan-fi
rm-defends-its-subst
andard-6m-reef
just published.
simonhumby
says...
4:27pm Sat 22 May 10
it says "ASR Ltd managing director Dr Shaw Mead said he understood the project at Boscombe in Bournemouth had been a huge success"
Joking? Lying? Badly-informed? Parallel universe? - we just don't know
time nor Tide
says...
10:20am Sat 29 May 10
.
Classic - i will nominate you as A Noble laureate for that truly marvalous and brillinat insight! True science at its best.
.
Check out "cold fusion" for other sucessfull science adventures?
There is a specific word for that branch of science that I am very careful not to use.
More News stories
- Woman fights for life after being hit by train at Wool
- Redknapp speaks after being cleared of tax evasion
- Bournemouth hotelier's anger at 'brothel' review on TripAdvisor website
- Get up close and personal with creatures at the Oceanarium
- Mudeford boy up for buddy award from Haemophilia Society
- Sell off your clothes to help Christchurch charity
- Castlepoint’s traffic: Queues driven away
- Castlepoint’s traffic: What drivers think
- Old Littledown Neighbourhood Watch to make film on bogus callers
- Poole drummer narrowly beaten in national contest
Surf reef: it's only 4 out of 10 says independent investigator
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Schooners says...
9:14am Tue 18 May 10
Fact - this reef was set to work in Easterly to South Easterly conditions, something we get about 4-5 times per year.
Fact - BCC were told when they went to Mount Monganui NZ that ASR had failed to provide a surfable wave yet £17,000 later and a nice suntan, BCC still went ahead.
Fact - The reef is the only piece of water in the UK to be patrolled 365 by RNLI Beach Rescue Lifeguards. Why? Because it will kill someone by drowning them when they get stuck in the huge gaps that have formed.
Fact - ASR's Opunake Reef in NZ is $1nzd over budget and a year late and OCC are in the process of taking ASR to Court.
Fact - ASR had to remove a reef in the USA as it was dangerous (same reasons ours should be funnily enough)
Fact - You cannot 'Tweak' 1000 tonnes of sand in bags on the seabed.
Fact - Holding back £147k of a total of £3.6m is not really going to make ASR cry at night.
Fact - Borth CC in Wales are also looking at spending £2m on a doomed reef as a last ditched attempt to save tourism, this could and will bankrupt them, yet despite terrible media reports into ASR they still want to go ahead, mmmm could that be because ASR pay good wages?
Fact - Meetings behind closed doors that then result in a freedom of information act request are just not cricket.
So, here we are, what do we do?
Firstly sack Roger Brown. Secondly invoke the indemnity insurance policy, oh yeah we cant do that can we as ASR had it written into the contract.
Yes it has brought tourist to the area. Yes Sorted Surf Shop are brilliant and have really helped turn the area around.
But really, I mean really, it is a gargantuan White Elephant of absolutely biblical proportions.
Simplest answer......take all the stones off the beach, split the bags, dup 1000's on tonnes of stones on it and a few military tanks and cars and boats and make it 7-8 times the size, then sit back and let nature take its course. In 18 months we will have a surfable, divable and marine stable environment.
ASR = Crooks
BCC = Stupid Victims of Fraud
Public = Innocent bystanders
Here's a suggestion...try phoning ASR today and see what you get.....oh they are all on holiday spending our £3,657,446 in the Maldives