Inquiry demanded over "£3m surf reef flop" (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Daily Echo on FacebookAll of today's content from across the site, all in one place at bournemouthecho.co.uk/today
Inquiry demanded over "£3m surf reef flop"
8:45am Wednesday 19th May 2010 in
FURIOUS councillors are demanding an inquiry into how Boscombe’s surf reef became “a £3 million flop.”
They were devastated to discover that claims there would be bigger waves and more surf days had been watered down since the idea of the reef was first put forward.
And they claim it has “made Bournemouth look stupid” and will ruin the resort’s reputation.
They told the Daily Echo councillors did not realise they were no longer hoping for waves enhanced by between two and 2.2 times when contracts were signed. They also believed the number of surf days would double or treble, which was not the case.
“How the hell can the council and the people of Bournemouth be treated like this?” said Cllr Basil Ratcliffe. “I am going to make a formal complaint to the Chief Executive – we, as a council, have been misled. This is unbelievable.”
And Cllr Ben Grower added: “The criteria were changed and it was not made absolutely clear to the council. Now an expert has admitted that surfing conditions on the reef are less consistent than they are on the beach.”
Marine expert Dr Mark Davidson from Plymouth University gave the reef a score of just four out of ten and said it falls short on a number of criteria in a report presented to councillors on Monday.
And the news has attracted adverse publicity for Bournemouth, which hoped to attract thousands more visitors to Europe’s first artificial reef.
“I think it is evident that we have a £3 million flop on our hands,” said Cllr Grower. “It will affect our reputation greatly because we did not do our homework.”
Cllr Ratcliffe added: “There has been widespread publicity about Bournemouth having a surf reef but we shouted too soon – it has made the town look stupid.”
Council figures have claimed the reef is a success because it has led to the regeneration of Boscombe seafront but Cllr Grower said: “The euphoria will soon disappear once people realise that it doesn’t work.”
Boscombe councillor Phil Stanley-Watts called for improvements to be made to the reef to ensure it works but he added: “The positive side is that investment in the surrounding area has done Boscombe a lot of good and uplifted the area.”
A spokesman for Bournemouth council said the criteria had not changed since the final design was approved in 2006.
Under its contract with ASR, Bournemouth council was to hold back £150,000 of its payment to ASR until the reef was judged to be working properly. Half of that figure would have been due now but the authority has said it won’t be paying until the reef’s problems are ironed out.
Comments(51)
MJD
says...
9:29am Wed 19 May 10
teddyonetwo
says...
9:30am Wed 19 May 10
Syd Poumen
says...
9:33am Wed 19 May 10
Surely, our Great Leader must believe it has increased Bournemouth's reputation as the dodgy surfing capital of Britain.
The wave of enthusiasm will bring a swell new crowd surging to Bournemouth!
alchemist
says...
10:01am Wed 19 May 10
We can shout from the roof tops about so many things that are wrong but how precious do you all really think the reputation of the town is and how your actions have an impact on that?
Should Councillors have been more diligent during the contract stage in insisting that they see the detail of what was going to be delivered? Is there really such a thing as a dead cert when dealing with Nature? What reputation we had gained for this project has now been blown away by the high profile way that the Councillors and Echo have dealt with this.
Why must we always promote the negative and not the positive? But then that doesn't sell papers or get more votes does it.
jobsworthwatch
says...
10:16am Wed 19 May 10
Either side of Bournemouth there are harbours stuffed full of pleasure craft, when the owners of these boats put to sea they invariably go out into Poole bay. Thus a marina would be more use than a surf reef!
Bob49
says...
10:29am Wed 19 May 10
alchemist wrote:Perhaps if a few more had been willing to "shout from the roof tops about so many things that are wrong" a few years back this farce would not have happened.
“made Bournemouth look stupid” and will ruin the resort’s reputation? Doesn't the way that Councillors and indeed the Echo deal with these stories have a negative impact on this? We can shout from the roof tops about so many things that are wrong but how precious do you all really think the reputation of the town is and how your actions have an impact on that? Should Councillors have been more diligent during the contract stage in insisting that they see the detail of what was going to be delivered? Is there really such a thing as a dead cert when dealing with Nature? What reputation we had gained for this project has now been blown away by the high profile way that the Councillors and Echo have dealt with this. Why must we always promote the negative and not the positive? But then that doesn't sell papers or get more votes does it.
Do you really think that any media will simply act as a biased medium for one side of a story and not report the other side of the story ? More so when it clearly contradicts those earlier claims.
Your suggestions of deceit and secrecy are as much part of the problem here as they are a solution.
Syd Poumen
says...
10:32am Wed 19 May 10
Bournemouth used to be a family resort with miles of beaches and seaside shows,etc, for families to enjoy. Thus some family entertainment would be of more use than a surf greef or gloat arena!
The irate commuter
says...
10:48am Wed 19 May 10
As likely as a big wave crashing onto Boscombe beach !
Phixer
says...
10:49am Wed 19 May 10
Azphreal
says...
10:51am Wed 19 May 10
pd7
says...
11:05am Wed 19 May 10
Syd Poumen
says...
11:06am Wed 19 May 10
jobsworthwatch wrote:Judging by the antics of those at the boat festival off Bournemouth Pier last Saturday, these boat owners should have stayed further out in Poole Bay!
Geography lesson for Bournemouth councillors:- Either side of Bournemouth there are harbours stuffed full of pleasure craft, when the owners of these boats put to sea they invariably go out into Poole bay. Thus a marina would be more use than a surf reef!
Xchurch-man
says...
11:10am Wed 19 May 10
I do hope these "improvements" will be coming out of his own pocket.
It will NEVER work, it is a waste of space and money. A few years from now after a few winter storms, it will be a pile of sand washed up on the beach. A monument to the stupid incompetency of those who wasted ratepayers money.
Roginthesouth
says...
11:14am Wed 19 May 10
Azphreal wrote:Agreed.
'led to the regeneration of Boscombe'? Thought the council plowed our money into it. Well its now made national press (Daily Mail) about this joke and along with the possibilty of ASR being sued in NZ for another failed reef i think that stopping £150k compared to wasting 3 million is too little too late.
I would accept the “marketing speak” and “hype” in the early quotation and general discussions in relation to the reef, and there might be some gullible individuals who could have been misled.
However a contract of this size using public funding is covered by the Procurement Directive and there should be a fully detailed contract with measurable and defined objectives when the order was placed. If these haven’t been achieved, then the council should also sue for the full amount.
Trifecta
says...
11:32am Wed 19 May 10
FOSF
says...
11:49am Wed 19 May 10
ELH1
says...
11:57am Wed 19 May 10
teddyonetwo
says...
12:27pm Wed 19 May 10
JLC
says...
12:32pm Wed 19 May 10
ELH1 wrote:Have you ever seen an ice rink attendant trying to clean up frozen voimt? The ice rink is a terrible idea. We do not live in lapland.
Clearly the reef seems to be a bit of a flop, which is a great shame, but as some people are quite rightly saying...do we really want to encourage even MORE stag/hen do's to the area, because even if the reef was effective, I have doubt that it would be attracting surfers, just more people coming here to throw up on our pavements at the weekends(?). Obviously some general public/families would get use out of it, but what Bmth council needs to do is stop 'selling out' at every given opportunity and bring back some of the seaside feel (in a modern/classy way) ...surely it would be better to attract families/couples/all walks of life rather than just offering bar upon bar (coupled with a surf reef, which i think, although a great idea in theory, and shows they're thinking a bit, will probably attract its fair share of trouble). Going off on a tangent here, but what I find incredible to believe is, why oh why is our once wonderful ice rink still not in action??, I'm not sure who owns it now or even if its still empty..but what an amazing place to go when we were younger...and with the recent interest in skating (shows on tv etc), what better time to get it going again and give the young people and holiday makers something to do other than drinking! It's a disgusting waste of a resource that we already have!! People moan about kids hanging around on street corners but when so many good things seem to be either shut down due to not making enough money or not being planned properly - then what else is to be expected? I realise attractions have to be financially viable but councils should have the money to sub certain things if need be, we pay enough in taxes etc don't we?!Bournemouth is a great place to live, lets try and keep it that way instead of letting it slide into the gutter....
So, Bournemouth doesn't have the extremes of wild surf, searing temperatures or froxen lakes for skating. It's time to accept that we are a mediocre town, just like Margate. We should celebrate our middle of the road status by encouraging more Kenny G gigs at the Pavilion. Stop funding these wacky projects and do something that suits the town. How about the worlds biggest knobbly knees competition or a Miss Bournemouth gala featuring young girls in swimsuits?
Trifecta
says...
12:33pm Wed 19 May 10
Syd Poumen
says...
12:44pm Wed 19 May 10
Trifecta wrote:If this is to be investigated by all our regular tory bodies, rest assured it will be behind closed doors like the surf grief, laptop,Master Vision and IMAX sagas!
In 2004 Tobias Ellwood commissioned a survey which showed a 90% majority in favour of a marina at Boscombe. The survey was ridiculed by the Liberal regime as ""another grandiose, pie-in-the-sky scheme coming from somebody who's trying to get their name in your paper." This needs to be investigated by all our regulatory bodies.
Syd Poumen
says...
12:50pm Wed 19 May 10
richt
says...
12:59pm Wed 19 May 10
...)
glennzilla
says...
1:07pm Wed 19 May 10
We'll see how much of a National Laughing Stock we are come August when 1million+ visitors descend on our beaches for the fabulous Air Show.
teddyonetwo
says...
1:07pm Wed 19 May 10
The Boscombe Spa Village Development will transform Boscombe Seafront into a unique year-round leisure amenity focused around the following key features:
* Europe’s first artificial surf reef.
* Refurbished Boscombe Pier.
* Landscaped piazza with public artwork in front of the pier, linking the recently renovated Victorian Boscombe Chine Gardens and Shelley Park to the sea.
* Revitalised Boscombe Overstrand complex incorporating surf themed shopping and tuition facilities, a ground and first floor restaurant with sea views, changing rooms, showers and 42 beach huts or ‘Surf Pods’, available for day-time hire and lease.
* Links to general re-development of the Boscombe area, including Boscombe Chine Gardens & Shelley Manor.
* New toilet facilities and land train garaging to the west of the Pier.
The formulation of this scheme follows an extensive period of public consultation
“The scheme is based upon what local residents said they wanted to see at the seafront, and is a massive contribution to the Council’s priority for regenerating Boscombe.” - Councillor Rob Copeland, Project Champion and Boscombe West Councillor.
The housing content:
Barratt Homes have taking over the car park at Boscombe seafront, where they are building 169 apartments, and it’s money from the sale of this site that has funded the whole development. Part of this car park will remain as a public car park. Building the apartments, commenced in September 2006 and is due for completion by Summer 2009.
How much will it all cost?
The total redevelopment costs for the Boscombe Spa Village project is approximately £8m, funded by the sale of land to Barratt Homes.
read the full thing here
http://webcache.goog
leusercontent.com/se
arch?q=cache:VhpzXeO
730kJ:www.bournemout
h.gov.uk/Library/Off
ice%2520Docs/Informa
tion%2520Pack%2520Te
xt%2520Sept%2520smal
l%252007%2520(2)%252
0(3).doc+honeycombe+
development+planning
+permission&cd=8&hl=
en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Pepper Pig
says...
1:25pm Wed 19 May 10
richt wrote:D'oh
Haven't the council learned anything from The Simpsons? (monorail...monorail ...)
Trifecta
says...
1:29pm Wed 19 May 10
teddyonetwo
says...
1:41pm Wed 19 May 10
KLH
says...
2:19pm Wed 19 May 10
Rip the whole thing out.
lovetheuk
says...
2:27pm Wed 19 May 10
Bob49
says...
2:59pm Wed 19 May 10
Suggest that you keep a copy of this(unwelcome stuff tends to disappear off other websites).
So theoritically there should have been a reasonable income generated from the rent of the surfpods. Could it have been that when the budget shot up by another £3m someone did the calculations and came up with the idea that if they sold off 40 odd surfpods at between £70-90k each they would cover the over spend.
Unfortunately it appears the sale price was so fixed to cover the rising overspend rather than any realistic market price. Thus we are now left will a pile of unsold beach huts, £3m plus to find and a pile of sandbags to fish out at an extra cost somewhere further down the line.
It has not been the sale of the land, as claimed, that has totally funded this complex. Not even the attempted sale of the surfpods either.
It is us, the local taxpayers, who have been lumbered with this open ended debt.
If anyone thinks what exists on the seafront now is worth £11m (with another £3m to find) there are either a councillor of totally mad. Perhaps those in favour could put their money where their mouth is a stump up that £3m plus arther than have it fall on the majority who can see what a farce it is.
a.g.o.g.
says...
3:10pm Wed 19 May 10
Bondi Beach!
Buttler
says...
3:32pm Wed 19 May 10
jeebuscripes
says...
4:09pm Wed 19 May 10
hismac
says...
4:41pm Wed 19 May 10
rassapotimus
says...
4:43pm Wed 19 May 10
Considering this the potential for increased marine life and research proves to be much more interesting and may provide some solace from the faliure of its primary recreational purpose. This habitat creation has been one of ASR's other supporting claims which include increased coastal protection. These claims require careful scrutiny as this reef has the potential to set a precedent for other development projects in the UK and Europe.
I recently conducted a study of the benthic invertebrates around the reef and compared the species, abundances and composition of the sediment with that of control sites further away. From my initial findings there appears to be no negative effect on diversity with overall higher abundances of invertebrates and therefore potentially more food for fish. Further monitoring is to be conducted which should hopefully make the reefs influence clearer.
If marine life has been enhanced this may translate into larger populations of commercial fish species for recreational angling and other fishries. Again this is early days and no substantial conclusions should be taken from this, but I think it highlights that rather than abandoning any value the reef might have we should use it as an oppertunity to evaluate the potential of artificial structures to enhance or even remediate the damaging impacts of overfishing and habitat destruction on our coastal ecosystems.
A less positive point relating to the surf reef is that by granting its construction the council may well of legitimized the slow release of pollution into the environment through the wearing of the geotextile fabric itself. The fragments of material look remarkably similar to small pieces of algae which may have the potential to enter the food chain. With our seas and oceans already heavily loaded with plastic I fail to see how there has been little or no scrutiny of this construction material by both the scientific community and knowledgable public.
boardstiff
says...
5:50pm Wed 19 May 10
rassapotimus wrote:You 'avin a larf? as they say.
I think all involved in the project surely knew in the back of their minds that you cant magic waves out of thin air. Free advertising and the chance of putting Bounrnemouth back on the map must of been far too tempting. I suspect that any 'tweaking' will still not fulfil the brief.
Considering this the potential for increased marine life and research proves to be much more interesting and may provide some solace from the faliure of its primary recreational purpose. This habitat creation has been one of ASR's other supporting claims which include increased coastal protection. These claims require careful scrutiny as this reef has the potential to set a precedent for other development projects in the UK and Europe.
I recently conducted a study of the benthic invertebrates around the reef and compared the species, abundances and composition of the sediment with that of control sites further away. From my initial findings there appears to be no negative effect on diversity with overall higher abundances of invertebrates and therefore potentially more food for fish. Further monitoring is to be conducted which should hopefully make the reefs influence clearer.
If marine life has been enhanced this may translate into larger populations of commercial fish species for recreational angling and other fishries. Again this is early days and no substantial conclusions should be taken from this, but I think it highlights that rather than abandoning any value the reef might have we should use it as an oppertunity to evaluate the potential of artificial structures to enhance or even remediate the damaging impacts of overfishing and habitat destruction on our coastal ecosystems.
A less positive point relating to the surf reef is that by granting its construction the council may well of legitimized the slow release of pollution into the environment through the wearing of the geotextile fabric itself. The fragments of material look remarkably similar to small pieces of algae which may have the potential to enter the food chain. With our seas and oceans already heavily loaded with plastic I fail to see how there has been little or no scrutiny of this construction material by both the scientific community and knowledgable public.
Irrespective of any supplemental benefits, this has always been branded as a SURF reef. (See the Council's own documentation, publicity material etc).
Had we wanted a reef simply to attract marine life, sinking a few burnt-out wrecks (and I could name a few) I am sure would have sufficed.
I have long supported the concept of a surf reef THAT WORKS as part of the start of Boscombe's long-overdue regeneration.
This surf reef does not (yet) work. Now we have a report that comes as nothing more than a blinding flash of the (expletive deleted) obvious, there needs to be a speedy demonstration of accountability from some very obvious quarters.
I seem to recall some months ago the Council going through the hackneyed process of counting column centimetres etc of positive publicity for the reef, translating them into rate card prices and coming up with a figure of what that publicity would have cost had it been paid-for advertising.
I wonder, just weeks before the season begins, if they are carrying out the same exercise with this week's tourism-wrecking coverage...
Security word: cost-many
Afcbpete
says...
6:26pm Wed 19 May 10
rook
says...
8:25pm Wed 19 May 10
richt wrote:"Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?"
Haven't the council learned anything from The Simpsons? (monorail...monorail
...)
The reef works or it doesn't, whichever is the case, don't waste more money when the only outcome will be irrelevant and won't get the money back.
More important to decide what the town wants to be and get on with it. Either we want to be the stag capital of Britain and take what comes with it both positive and negative or else we want to return to being a top family resort.
carrie54
says...
10:58pm Wed 19 May 10
silverking
says...
8:31am Thu 20 May 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
3:04pm 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.
whingeyminge
says...
9:12pm Thu 20 May 10
reefskeptic
says...
11:02pm 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!
reefskeptic
says...
11:41pm Thu 20 May 10
Its 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?
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
12:12pm Fri 21 May 10
whingeyminge wrote:Ahoy Brethren,
You're too right Capt. Ahab. You know as well as I that no other place in the world has dog muck piled up so high. £3m spent and just 1 dog muck bin with all those dogs. I saw a big one, one of those pitbulls it was, squat down right in front of an old girl. Poor dear didn't know what to do and had a terrible turn. And do you see a council worker to empty the bin. Oh no -beneath them that is. I agree with you Ahab that's what the inquiry needs to be about. You keep fighting for us old folk - we don't want any of this tearaway surfing mullarcky here, just some cleanliness. And the bus stop - completely in the wrong place - that should be in the inquiry.
My question regarding Mr Roger Browns (possible) promotion or new titled responsibilities indeed be serious and not my usual humorous waffle Har.
Be Mr Brown elevated, I assume this new status be rewarded with ‘more’ gold coins and in turn an increase in pensions. Taking him into retirement (soon?) with even more of the Brethrens monies? And I for one find that prospect disgusting.
Shame that yer ‘Cabinet’ not be paid on related performance?
reefskeptic
says...
9:21am Sat 22 May 10
nz/business/industri
es/3726274/Raglan-fi
rm-defends-its-subst
andard-6m-reef
.
for your information
lilliputian
says...
10:45am Sun 23 May 10
mybleachhouse
says...
1:46am Mon 24 May 10
reefskeptic
says...
7:55am Tue 25 May 10
.
Original estimates of the reef costing around £500,000 have been halved by ***** to be built for the same cost or less than the traditional Wooden groynes, so long a feature of Bournemouths seafront. If the plans for the reef are adopted, new reefs could be built every year instead of groynes. this would eventually make the beach a lot bigger, and transform Bournemouth into the Watersports Mecca of Europe !
****** returned to Bournemouth in June to present the findings of his study, including the Benefit-cost analysis. This showed a staggering 37-1 ratio for the Reef at Southbourne, and 21-1 at Boscombe.
Here is a brief summary of ***** recommendations:
Southbourne: Southbourne with be just one right hander of about 110m long. It will provide the coastal protection which is needed for this area at a capital cost similar to groynes and cheaper over 50 years, and it is hoped that funds will be obtained from MAFF for coastal protection, and from the lottery sports fund. This should be a challenging wave, probably a 6 - 7grade. (Pipeline would be 7-8, and Raglan a 5). Initial ideas suggest that the reef be based on Bingin, a reef break on Bali . (***** team have surveyed the bottom contours of all the renowned reef breaks around the pacific). It hoped that by breaking up the line of swell and creating refraction, one or two decent banks should form on each side, thus creating two or three breaks where there are currently none. (This effect has occurred at Narrowneck- they still have to get the top layer on there, but it shows very good form on large swells).
Boscombe: The Boscombe pier reef would be double sided reef with a left hander of about 90 metres and a right hander of about a 100 metres. The reef would be designed to protect a slightly shortened pier which is in a poor state and which would otherwise have to be demolished, or else rebuilt at great cost in the near future. The Boscombe reef would be a bit less severe than Southbourne, probably a grade 5. This is partly to give variety, but also to appeal to the intermediate or merely competent surfers. It is hoped to have night-lights on the pier so that people can surf after work in the winter.
keyword hope-sell??? wtf?
More News stories
- Cherries player Gary Bowles guilty of attack on ex-partner
- Christchurch councillors booed after deciding to demolish Druitt Hall
- Bournemouth University students to hold charity swap shop event
- NHS chief executive Roger Browning steps down after 20 years
- Bournemouth schools go green with textiles recycling competition
- Charity in memory of John Thornton raises £250,000
- Turlin Moor school making satisfactory progress, says Ofsted
- Bournemouth pupils design tributes to Red Arrows pilot Jon Egging
- Chris Huhne quits as minister over charge
- De Vere puts Bournemouth's Royal Bath hotel up for sale
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Peggy Babcock says...
9:04am Wed 19 May 10