Why is the Boscombe surf reef failing, part two...

8:30am Tuesday 6th July 2010 in News By Melanie Vass

Why is the Boscombe surf reef failing, part two... Why is the Boscombe surf reef failing, part two...

A SECOND inquiry into Bournemouth’s controversial surf reef will try to find out why expectations of its performance were downgraded.

The Boscombe reef is currently failing to meet four out of its 11 official criteria, prompting the council to withhold a £150,000 performance-based payment.

But councillors are concerned that these performance benchmarks have been significantly lowered since they first approved the idea of creating a reef at Boscombe.

At a special scrutiny meeting on Tuesday, July 13, councillors will quiz officers as to why and when this happened and who authorised it.

Council reports prepared for the meeting show the council agreed to pursue the creation of a double-sided surf reef wrapped around Boscombe Pier back in 2000.

A report by ASR said at the time: “With the reef in place at Bournemouth, a 2.0 to 2.2 times wave height enhancement is expected. This enhancement will increase the number of surfable days by a factor of 2 to 3.”

Five years later, an initial design report by ASR said the company aimed to design a reef with a surfing difficulty ranking of four to five. The ideal ride length would be between 75 and 100m and last between 12 and 15 seconds.

Related links

“The surfing reef is a low risk but technically innovative scheme,” ASR’s report concluded.

It was not until May this year that the council released the results of the reef’s first monitoring exercise, which showed the reef was under-performing.

The reef was measured against 11 performance targets, including an increase in wave height of 20 per cent, providing for rides of more than three seconds and matching the beach in terms of the number of surfable days.

Comments(28)

ben111 says...
8:38am Tue 6 Jul 10

yawn ... AAAAAAHHHH

Report this post »

zagzig says...
8:53am Tue 6 Jul 10

Yawn...more yawns and for gods sake Bournemouth council wake up! If you want people to be able to surf at Boscombe then you need to relocate the town 150 miles due west.

Report this post »

Mediclogan5 says...
9:03am Tue 6 Jul 10

And how much more money will be flushed down the drain on this farce. Tell you what give me all your council tax and I will burn it in my back yard for my Bar B Q rather than buy trees, a flop idea and an eyesore.

Report this post »

winton50 says...
9:16am Tue 6 Jul 10

mmmmmm BBQ

Report this post »

Azphreal says...
10:02am Tue 6 Jul 10

Will the council tell us if all these reports will actually cost more than the £150,000 they are keeping from ASR? First they lower what it should do and it even does not reach that criteria so why is there no legal avenue to get money back from this company?

Report this post »

Bob49 says...
10:15am Tue 6 Jul 10

So the council have been caught 'moving the goalposts' in regard to the reef;s performance targets.


Maybe the Echo might care to check how mnay jobs were originally claimed to be created. Check the shops and cafe on the pier head. Check the original height of the Moneycombe development. How the pods were to be tented NOT sold.



This sham was pushed through on far different expectations than are now being talked of. I think there was also claimed to be a surplus - not a £3m plus deficit [- something that local taxpayers will ave to pay for.



So lets hope the council will name and shame those who were responsible for this sleight of hand.

Report this post »

marjorie01 says...
10:42am Tue 6 Jul 10

People must be so pleased that the council are spending the tax people's money on such a well thought out, inclusive, vital project whilst removing funding from other non essential areas like housing projects, crime reduction, schools, health etc. I must take up surfing I think to really get the most out of this council initiative - oh yes, forget the surf reef is not quite working yet. Hmm. Reminds me of the old song - there's a hole in my bucket dear liza dear liza

Report this post »

Mediclogan5 says...
10:46am Tue 6 Jul 10

Why does the council think that the local electorates are niave and mindless. Feed us fodder in the hope that we will swallow everything the propaganda machine throws out. Its OUR Council Taxes people.

Report this post »

jinglebell says...
11:35am Tue 6 Jul 10

Cavaet exemplar! Its all in the contract. Agree to an impoverished contract and you clearly become impoverished.
P***-up and brewery.

Report this post »

Bad Rabbit says...
11:36am Tue 6 Jul 10

Mediclogan5,

You ask:
"Why does the council think that the local electorates are niave and mindless."

Maybe it's because you and the rest of the naive and mindless electorate keep voting them back in?

I mean could be wrong, but it seems to cover all the bases doesn't it.

As the Jam once sang, the public wants what the public gets...

Report this post »

FOSF says...
11:46am Tue 6 Jul 10

Will ASR really be interested in whether they get £150k or not. They have already recieved £3.6m, or there abouts, with an unfinished, useless bag of sand, no use to anyone, except the marine life using it as a new home. Of course it is not mentioned, is that everything that goes with the reef, ie, Pods, Flats, Sea Front Shops, and other infrastrutcture costs in excess of £12m. I wonder where that money will come from. Do we need to ask.

Report this post »

contric says...
11:53am Tue 6 Jul 10

the headline is why is the boscombe surf reef not working the answer is because it is crap

Report this post »

McVICAR says...
11:57am Tue 6 Jul 10

contric wrote:
the headline is why is the boscombe surf reef not working the answer is because it is crap
It was also said that it would never work in the first place, but no body listened. and yes, it is crap

Report this post »

time nor Tide says...
12:21pm Tue 6 Jul 10

"The Boscombe reef is currently failing to meet four out of its 11 official criteria, prompting the council to withhold a £150,000 performance-based payment. "
Umm .....i thought that it only met 4 out of 11 of its performance criteria ?

Report this post »

Mediclogan5 says...
12:42pm Tue 6 Jul 10

Actually I voted Independent...yes I agree totally you get what you vote..however Dire Straits also sang 'when you point your finger cause your plans fell through..you got three more fingers pointing back at you.'

Report this post »

reefwatching says...
1:13pm Tue 6 Jul 10

The comic tragedy of this gets better and better. The reports now on the council's website contain some real gems - I just love the dominance of pictures of people surfing over any meaningful science in ASR's reports. Just how did the council end up taking these guys seriously??

The key question that the covering report does not answer is - why did the council employ a company all the way from NZ, to build something they had never built before, indeed a company that had never built anything before? Despite their inexperience, they were employed both to estimate the cost of building it, and directly adwarded the contract, in clear breach of EU procurement law.

When is the council going to get externally investigated, an auditor would have a field day with some of these documents (and of course the ones still out of public view).

Report this post »

time nor Tide says...
2:17pm Tue 6 Jul 10

@RW perhaps the answer to your question is easy - they actually believed that they could do it. Believed it so much that nothing was going to allowed to get in the way. Difficulty was, I think, that reality got in the way? Damm! its an inconvenience when that happens? Commonly called a "bad trip". Sorry no refunds is clearly printed on the ticket?

Report this post »

Adrian Fudge says...
5:14pm Tue 6 Jul 10

I remember when the cost doubled and we were told that it was because the Council had got a better deal ensuring that the money invested was protected
What happened to that or was that yet more spin
Perhaps the Echo might like to reprint who said it

Report this post »

chris100 says...
5:28pm Tue 6 Jul 10

how much of the cost of the reef ,the pods and flats did each counciler pocket thats the question

bournemouth council is or must be one of the most corrupt in england

lol @ security word -- tiny-bill

Report this post »

EGHH says...
5:48pm Tue 6 Jul 10

This council is a joke. Roll on May 5th 2011 so we can get rid of them!

Report this post »

Gastines says...
6:00pm Tue 6 Jul 10

Visited the site last Thursday evening and couldn't even see a ripple!! About time the "Echo" served the local readers by finding out the answers to the repeatedly asked questions. A full acount of the expenditure and who agreed the extras and why would be a start. A complete fiasco from start to finish and a very expensive one.

Report this post »

snake hips says...
6:02pm Tue 6 Jul 10

what a waste of council tax!!!! yawn yawn yawn!!!

Report this post »

Bob49 says...
6:48pm Tue 6 Jul 10

“All elements, excluding the surf reef, are being delivered at or below the original budget projections,” stated head of leisure Roger Brown. June 2008


" The biggest mistake was trying to save money and time by not carrying out a full structural survey of the Overstrand building. They made drawings of the outside and surveyed the balconies but never actually looked inside. Head of leisure services Roger Brown admitted to Wednesday’s special scrutiny panel meeting: “It was much worse than we had estimated. On reflection we should have done a more total survey.” Feb 2009





Mr Brown also apologised to councillors because the £1.05m cost of fitting out of the 60 “Surf Pods” had never previously been revealed. Feb 2009.





So it cost on average £16,000 plus to paint and to put in a couple or so deckchairs into these wretched things !


Still, never one for being tied to realistic projections we further had -


Mr Brown said sales of the ....... previous "super-huts" were “selling well off-plan despite the recession”. Feb 2009




Finally the true picture is beginning to emerge - sadly it will mean quite a large and growing debt being passed onto local taxpayers

Report this post »

Corrupto says...
7:23pm Tue 6 Jul 10

Bob49 wrote:
“All elements, excluding the surf reef, are being delivered at or below the original budget projections,” stated head of leisure Roger Brown. June 2008


" The biggest mistake was trying to save money and time by not carrying out a full structural survey of the Overstrand building. They made drawings of the outside and surveyed the balconies but never actually looked inside. Head of leisure services Roger Brown admitted to Wednesday’s special scrutiny panel meeting: “It was much worse than we had estimated. On reflection we should have done a more total survey.” Feb 2009





Mr Brown also apologised to councillors because the £1.05m cost of fitting out of the 60 “Surf Pods” had never previously been revealed. Feb 2009.





So it cost on average £16,000 plus to paint and to put in a couple or so deckchairs into these wretched things !


Still, never one for being tied to realistic projections we further had -


Mr Brown said sales of the ....... previous "super-huts" were “selling well off-plan despite the recession”. Feb 2009




Finally the true picture is beginning to emerge - sadly it will mean quite a large and growing debt being passed onto local taxpayers
and hopefully Brown's resignation.

or will the whole sorry bunch hang in until they are jailed?

Report this post »

time nor Tide says...
11:49pm Tue 6 Jul 10

Adrian Fudge wrote:
I remember when the cost doubled and we were told that it was because the Council had got a better deal ensuring that the money invested was protected What happened to that or was that yet more spin Perhaps the Echo might like to reprint who said it
There's a fine line between spin and "doublespeak" . the leader and big brother from George Orwells 1984 defined War as Peace. Doubling the cost of something is actually a saving money.
.
The following also applys for the "sanitising" of the 7 failures.
.
""Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3"
.
I feel that Melanie is now part of that process? Only 4 things wrong, not 7?

Report this post »

Was Charlie says...
8:28am Wed 7 Jul 10

At first quick glance at the headline, I read it as "Why is Boscome surf reef falling apart." My immediate reaction was "As predicted, but it didn't take as long as was thought by those who reckoned it would happen."

Report this post »

time nor Tide says...
9:26am Wed 7 Jul 10

Trust has been damaged. People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution. --Hans von Storch, The Guardian, 5 July 2010
.
Although not on topic ( climate change) i think its interesting to obsrve human nature seems pervasive amongst all sorts of people? Storch seems to think so anyway?

Report this post »

simonhumby says...
10:21am Thu 8 Jul 10

I was thinking that it was time to remove the "this way to the surf reef" sign on the Spur road (it's not funny any more, just embarrassing).
But now I think that it should remain for all time to remind current councillors of the mistakes they've made in the past and as a warning for future councillors

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree