Bournemouth Council says it has no information to give us about the reef report (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Bournemouth RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos
Bournemouth Council says it has no information to give us about the reef report
8:10am Monday 15th March 2010 in
BOURNEMOUTH council said it has no information to release over the six-month assessment of whether the Boscombe surf reef is working.
Officers were recently given a verbal briefing from Plymouth University experts on how the £3 million reef was performing but declined to speak about the results.
The Daily Echo requested the information under the Freedom of Information Act but was told: “The council has not yet received an interim report or nor does it have the presentation given by Plymouth University.
“Relevant information will be made public as part of the cabinet agenda for the meeting to be held on 28th April.”
The council said it will instead discuss the report’s findings with representatives of three surfing groups then speak to reef contractor ASR.
It is compiling a report into the reef to be finished in around six months’ time, which will include studies of the reef’s effects on coastal erosion and sea life.
Mark Smith, head of tourism, defended the council’s position at March’s meeting of the Bournemouth Chamber of Trade.
He said: “When we have got the information, it can be put out sensibly.
“It wouldn’t be right or sensible to give one of the sources a public airing before then.”
Mike Stebbings, from Bournemouth Area Hospitality Association (BAHA), said the information vacuum had “slightly backfired” and allowed the reef’s opponents to criticise.
Cllr Ron Whittaker, who has demanded the report’s findings be released, replied: “We have got a situation where we have to respond to enquiries made by our electors.
“Don’t treat councillors like two year old children.”
Cllr Whittaker, who had threatened to call a special meeting of the whole council in a bid to get information, has been told a briefing will be held for councillors on April 21, prior to a cabinet meeting on April 28. He said the situation was “far from perfect” but would enable a full discussion before the issue went to cabinet.
Comments(45)
wonderway
says...
8:33am Mon 15 Mar 10
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
8:40am Mon 15 Mar 10
• “Surfability: is a wave produced that can be surfed by competent stand-up surfers who are at least able to execute standard manoeuvres consecutively on a single wave?
• Wave quality:
o What is the ride length?
o Is the wave ‘plunging’ – i.e. a steep wave suitable for competent surfers able to execute standard manoeuvres?
o Is the wave breaking at a speed that is challenging?
o How much is the wave amplified?
• Surfer numbers: The number of surfable days and the number of surfers in the water, compared to Boscombe Pier”.
...
The Council must be very worried; no doubt their spin machine is running a damage limitation exercise to cover up this fiasco.
reefwatching
says...
9:38am Mon 15 Mar 10
BH10et
says...
11:37am Mon 15 Mar 10
jobsworthwatch
says...
12:03pm Mon 15 Mar 10
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:Yes, haven't you heard? Because the surf reef has not come up to expectations the council are now spending £3 million on its removal owing to it being a hazard to shipping!
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to hold the briefing on "All Fools Day", April 1st
lilliputian
says...
1:41pm Mon 15 Mar 10
Bob49
says...
2:17pm Mon 15 Mar 10
Not really accurate that one. The only way the council could sell off the carpark to the the priviliged few was to come up with some supposed benefit to the area. This was the 'urf theme'.
If they had not had the sale, THAT money would not have been available. Whether the reef 'works' or not is immaterial. The core intent that wealth would be driven up Sea Road like some tidal wave of investment was always a nonsense.
There are far more complex social concerns in Boscombe than can ever be solved by building exclusive properties in a much sort after area.
What should be strongly questioned is what happened to the pier development and who will fund the ££3m shortfall from the failure of the surfpods to either be sold or even rented.
There is little there to attract families. Few car parking spaces and few amenities for those on an average income. Sadly by the time this pile of redundant sandbags is roped off as dangerous those responsible will have slipped away with their ill gotten gains.
reefwatching
says...
2:28pm Mon 15 Mar 10
om/bournemouthreefpr
oject/2009/11/3/bbc-
news-is-surf-reef-go
od-for-boscombe.html
#comments
boardstiff
says...
2:52pm Mon 15 Mar 10
You heard it here, folks!
Bob49
says...
5:11pm Mon 15 Mar 10
They 'read' it here stiffy, unless this forum has magical powers - rather like the ones you appear to ascribe to the seafront scam.
I have previously pointed this out (last monday) so do keep up.
Complaining about the failure of this heap this is akin to complaining the 'birdmen' who jump of Worthing pier in their costumes - failing because the are not wearing the right coloured feather. The whole charade was doomed from the start and trying to hide that fact by diverting attention to one notable failure is not helping matters at all.
The right people have made their money and the rest of us are left to pick up the bill.
So spin it how you want stiffy but it won't fix the £3m loss, the lack of amenities, car parking, the cafe and shops on the pier or give us what we were told a few years back
"... to attract a large number of visitors all year round and will double the 153 good surfing days at the beach to 306."
306 days ! ! !
dancingdog
says...
6:07pm Mon 15 Mar 10
boardstiff
says...
6:32pm Mon 15 Mar 10
Bob49, Bournemouth says...
5:11pm Mon 15 Mar 10
"You heard it here, folks!"
They 'read' it here stiffy, unless this forum has magical powers - rather like the ones you appear to ascribe to the seafront scam.
"HEARD IT HERE" IS A COLLOQUIALISM, BLOB, TO BE TAKEN AS SUCH. AS IT HAPPENS, MY COMPUTER READS TEXT ALOUD AS I SUSPECT DO THE COMPUTERS OF MANY OTHERS HERE, SO I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. IN REGARD TO WHAT YOU SAY I "APPEAR" TO ASCRIBE TO THE SEAFRONT SCHEME, PERHAPS YOU COULD BE SPECIFIC AND FOR ONCE - JUST ONCE - ACTUALLY ANSWER A QUESTION.
I have previously pointed this out (last monday) so do keep up.
SORRY BLOB - I HAVE BEEN TOO BUSY DOWN AT THE PIER LOOKING FOR THE SIGN ABOUT 50 METRE WAVES WHICH YOU SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED ON THIS SITE. ANY COMMENT?
Complaining about the failure of this heap this is akin to complaining the 'birdmen' who jump of Worthing pier in their costumes - failing because the are not wearing the right coloured feather. The whole charade was doomed from the start and trying to hide that fact by diverting attention to one notable failure is not helping matters at all.
SO YOU'RE NOT COMPLAINING...?
The right people have made their money and the rest of us are left to pick up the bill.
WHO ARE 'THE RIGHT PEOPLE", BLOB? TELL US, DO, IF YOU KNOW. OTHERWISE, IF YOU CAN'T PUT UP - WELL, YOU KNOW THE REST.
So spin it how you want stiffy but it won't fix the £3m loss, the lack of amenities, car parking, the cafe and shops on the pier or give us what we were told a few years back
I PRESUME THE £3m LOSS REFERS TO THE REEF - BUT ACCORDING TO YOUR ASSERTION, THERE'S APPARENTLY NO POINT IN COMPLAINING. ODD, GIVEN THAT ALL YOU HAVE DONE SO FAR IS TO COMPLAIN - EVEN ABOUT A BUS STOP THAT IS SITED IN WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE MOST LOGICAL POSITION. WHERE WAS CAR PARKING PROMISED, AND BY WHOM? WHEN WERE A CAFE AND SHOPS ACTUALLY ON THE PIER EVER PROMISED, AND BY WHOM?
"... to attract a large number of visitors all year round and will double the 153 good surfing days at the beach to 306."
DOUBLING THE GOOD SURFING DAYS, I CAN RECALL. BUT WHERE WERE THOSE NUMBERS EVER MENTIONED? TELL ME, PLEASE!
BIGTONE
says...
7:39pm Mon 15 Mar 10
reefseptic
says...
8:16pm Mon 15 Mar 10
We were promised quality outlets on the pier to provide us with a wide selection of Tena pants and lukewarm cups of tea in nice china.
They who conned us are a worldwide movement of reef builders, led by aliens from Sirius.
We care deeply about the bus stop - we can go all the way to the Scottish borders on buses if we want, free, we don't have to pay a penny, we just scam off of hard working decent taxpayers for our free buses. Stuff the £3m - we can spend billions on free buses that the lowly paid have to cough up for out of their taxes - so don't talk to us about bus stops. You could build hospitals, mend potholes, and empty ever bin in Bournemouth for years on the money we waste on pointless bus trips.
And as for the reef - we want no reefs, no bicycles or skateboards, no beach volleyball....we don't sit in our wet underwear sipping lukewarm tea to see your sort enjoy yourself. Oh no.......all up the pier 13:00 hours tomorrow, the hounds are coming.....
WIGGINSv
says...
8:29pm Mon 15 Mar 10
tide nor time
says...
8:56pm Mon 15 Mar 10
Bob49 is right. It's nothing to do with surf. It's to do with the temporary bus stop used when the Monday market is on in Christchurch. The reef is just a smokescreen to cover up for the massive traffic jam coming down Fairmile. A few well placed timelapse cameras on Bargates will prove the pudding of the reef and the giant Hawaiin waves and how you come round the corner smack into the rear of a number 1a. Oh yes - when I learn English I will make a well reasoned cabbage.
cathyl
says...
9:18pm Mon 15 Mar 10
Skyrah
says...
9:42pm Mon 15 Mar 10
I saw the sign that Bob49 refers to in regard to the 50 metre waves, and boardstiff, I can promise you that it is there and is quoted from correctly by Bob – sign between Overcliff/Reef cafe and the Barratt Homes development on the promenade.
What I did not see was much in the way of waves or surfers – I guess today was just one of the very few days the surf just wasn’t up? There did not appear to be any activity in any of the ‘surf pods’ either, which was surprising given that it was such a nice afternoon.
What does perplex me somewhat is that all the investment seems to be aimed at one single group of sea users (the surfers), why couldn’t a little of the investment have been for family usage of the area? The sign on the prom with all the reef blurb states that the reef is ultimately aimed at the more experienced surfer so not a lot of help to families who just want to ‘have a go’. Could money not have been spent on a surf machine for all abilities and weather? How about something like: http://www.waveloch.
com/
All this aside, why did we have to pay £3.6 million for the sand bag reef, could this not have been done at less than the cost of a 4-5 bedroom house? There was only sand and netting so I can’t see how the materials could have cost any more than a couple of hundred thousand at best.
cpolak
says...
8:11am Tue 16 Mar 10
reefwatching wrote:I posted a (politely) critical comment on the quoted site yesterday afternoon. Surprise, surprise, it was removed overnight!
Can anyone confirm whether the people quoted here on ASR's website praising the reef actually exist (I notice critical comments are removed). http://blog.asrltd.c om/bournemouthreefpr oject/2009/11/3/bbc- news-is-surf-reef-go od-for-boscombe.html #comments
peter beneather benifit cheater
says...
8:41am Tue 16 Mar 10
The world class reef has improved the area 1000%.How long before we see our future king hanging five.
reefwatching
says...
10:11am Tue 16 Mar 10
If the project ever gets externally audited, it is on this that the council will get nailed, and rightly so. They have effectively paid £2m so ASR couldn't blame the way it was built for it not performing.
Dorset_Born_n_Bread !
says...
10:32am Tue 16 Mar 10
So we paid 3.6 Mil for just a load of plastic non bio-degradeable sacks and some local sand (freely available) ????????????????????
?????
Schooners
says...
11:57am Tue 16 Mar 10
1) If the meeting was only a verbal one (ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE MINUTED therefore a paper trail is visible.!!)
2) My mate sent an email to Borth CC to warn them about the Reef and ASR. He then received a phone call from Peter Hibbard shouting at him and being thoroughly rude to him telling him that,' He did not know what he was talking about' despite being a surfer, SUP'er and kiter of many years who has done his sports all over the world.
What has to happen to warrant a Public Enquiry being called? Anyone got any ideas?
How dare these buffoons now play the 'coastal erosion & marine life' card. THE REEF WAS NOT SOLD TO US AS A EITHER SOLUTION.
Someone call ITV or BBC and get them back down here to interview these weasels on camera.
How dare they lie lie lie all of the time.
This Saturday and Sunday Bournemouth will be laughed off the face of the International and National Surfing calender because of the Reef (which cannot even have the competition held on it because of the poor wave quality!!!!).
Do go down and support the guys from Sorted as this is not their fault and this is a local event and will bring tourists. The Council did the Reef not Sorted remember.
Finally, anyone know who Peter Hibbard is and what his relationship is to Borth and BCC? £££££?
reefwatching
says...
1:15pm Tue 16 Mar 10
You really could not make it up.
I don't know a Peter Hibbard, but ASR and their 'agents' in the UK are well known for their aggressive tactics. Claiming other people don't know what they're talking about is standard, but actually reveals them to be the charlatans they are. Real experts would never claim to know it all, they are only too aware of the gaps in their knowledge.
yankee
says...
6:16pm Tue 16 Mar 10
How 'convenient'! I wonder whether the Council asked for the report to be verbal, not written???
time nor Tide
says...
8:50pm Tue 16 Mar 10
tide nor time wrote:I think i have been struck by a poltergheist?
But when as promised 2 x the girth for the whole 14km length of the wibble all the way to Lyminton. When 50 foot waves while the piers are rammed with goats as the videos showed. Which surfers are there who say artichoke. Wait until the scientific evidence and we will see the depth of binbags and the uper layer on top of the lower layer which upside down is. Bob49 is right. It's nothing to do with surf. It's to do with the temporary bus stop used when the Monday market is on in Christchurch. The reef is just a smokescreen to cover up for the massive traffic jam coming down Fairmile. A few well placed timelapse cameras on Bargates will prove the pudding of the reef and the giant Hawaiin waves and how you come round the corner smack into the rear of a number 1a. Oh yes - when I learn English I will make a well reasoned cabbage.
..
It actually sounds a bit Lewis Carrol? (what was he on when he wrote Alice? Was it Laudanum from the Apothecaries ?)
..
Anyone know the phone number for a good excorcist?
..
Why would anyone bother putting up such a bizare post?
..
Maybe I have been arsed with a verbose case of "red herrings"?
..
Maybe BBC has nothing to report as there is nothing good to report?
time nor Tide
says...
8:57pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Schooners wrote:TIP !
SMALL POINT : 1) If the meeting was only a verbal one (ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE MINUTED therefore a paper trail is visible.!!) 2) My mate sent an email to Borth CC to warn them about the Reef and ASR. He then received a phone call from Peter Hibbard shouting at him and being thoroughly rude to him telling him that,' He did not know what he was talking about' despite being a surfer, SUP'er and kiter of many years who has done his sports all over the world. What has to happen to warrant a Public Enquiry being called? Anyone got any ideas? How dare these buffoons now play the 'coastal erosion & marine life' card. THE REEF WAS NOT SOLD TO US AS A EITHER SOLUTION. Someone call ITV or BBC and get them back down here to interview these weasels on camera. How dare they lie lie lie all of the time. This Saturday and Sunday Bournemouth will be laughed off the face of the International and National Surfing calender because of the Reef (which cannot even have the competition held on it because of the poor wave quality!!!!). Do go down and support the guys from Sorted as this is not their fault and this is a local event and will bring tourists. The Council did the Reef not Sorted remember. Finally, anyone know who Peter Hibbard is and what his relationship is to Borth and BCC? £££££?
Dont stand between a reef industry cult member and his money -he might get angry?
noel1
says...
9:04pm Tue 16 Mar 10
I know someone who was a councilor when this idea was first mooted and was studying the proposal, but he has a letter from the Wallingford Hydraullic Research centre saying the effect of the reef would be "neutral" (i.e. a diplomatic way of saying it probably wouldn't work) and rejected the scheme.
The letter is probably on file in the council offices but was ignored by the last LibDem administration when the gave this white elephant planning permission in their final weeks.
time nor Tide
says...
9:35pm Tue 16 Mar 10
.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Hydraulics_
Research_Station
.
Maybe they just dont understand waves and cant double their size for twice as many times a year?
.
Now if the contractor makes that happen, just as shown on the youtube model wavetank video - all will be forgiven and forgotten.
.
Then, with a clear conscience they can sell many more reefs?
cynical bill
says...
9:42pm Tue 16 Mar 10
cynical bill
says...
9:46pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Bob49
says...
10:09pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Nothing was libellous of offensive. I merely stated where my facts and evidence came from and gave verifiable sources for those statements.
Oddly enough (or not) most that was taken from past content carried in the Daily Echo.
Why the Daily Echo does not want it's previous reporting quoted I don't know. Maybe someone on here does.
I can substantiate every statement I have made on this matter and wish that a few others would actually wake up and realise what has happened (and, I am sad to say, will further happen).
Skyrah
says...
11:23pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Bob49
says...
12:38am Wed 17 Mar 10
Interesting to see if any other substantiation of my earlier statement stays.
boardstiff
says...
9:13am Wed 17 Mar 10
10:09pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Unfortunately both my replies to
another poster's comments have
been removed.
Nothing was libellous of offensive. I
merely stated where my facts and
evidence came from and gave
verifiable sources for those
statements."
LOOK, BLOB. I'VE SPACED YOUR COMMENTS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN READ BETWEEN THE LINES! FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS I'VE BEEN ASKING YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS. NOT ONCE HAVE YOU RESPONDED - AND NOW THIS!
Bob49
says...
12:10pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Can the Echo explain why ?
Schooners
says...
2:18pm Wed 17 Mar 10
,454 on a surf reef THAT WE CANNOT USE FOR A SURFING COMPETITION.
Oh my god I am going to wet myself laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
boardstiff
says...
4:04pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Bob49 wrote:This would be the same Echo that made a Freedom of Information request to get to the bottom of the issue, would it?
Again my reply has been removed.
Can the Echo explain why ?
Skyrah
says...
12:02am Thu 18 Mar 10
What ever the reason, they realy should publish in the space your comment should be that it has been removed and a brief note why! At least then you'd know what sort of comments to refrain from making in the future! (I'm pretty sure from speaking to you that there would have been no valid or legal reason for your comments to be removed)
I really worry that our freedom of
speech is being eroded beyond the point of no return.
Bob49
says...
10:29am Thu 18 Mar 10
My objections are that the project has failed to deliver as previously stated. There were statements made about their being upmarket shops and a cafe on the pier - I have the photos from the boards put up prior to the development.
Likewise there were statements claiming 13 ft waves, a doubling to 306 days surfing - with the board now on the seafront clearly stating 50m waves.
This failure might be dismissed as a self funding mishap whereby it has only cost money that was raised from that location. Unfortunately with the surf pods not selling the council is now faced with a £3m shortfall. Money that will have to come from outside of the development.
Local traders have gone on record as saying that the much vaunted surfing based visitors have not materialised. Nor, would I suggest, have the large number of jobs previously cliamed either.
To put that down solely to the failure of the reef is to ignore the bigger picture. A picture that has enormous gaps where those earlier 'promises' are missing as they have not been fulfilled.
Any argument require verification to underpin it's validity. Any sources that can be easily accessed by others reading this forum should be quoted, and should be permitted.
boardstiff
says...
5:03pm Thu 18 Mar 10
10:29am Thu 18 Mar 10
In reply to Skyrah, my previous replies pointed towards comments made by various council officials and others that were openly reported in the Daily Echo.
DO YOU KNOW, BLOB, THERE'S ALMOST A SENSE OF CONTRITION HERE. BUT LET'S GET BACK TO THE POINT. WHERE IS THE SUBSTANTIATION OF ALL OF YOUR CLAIMS? NOWHERE! INSTEAD, YOU NOW REFER TO "COMMENTS" HAVING BEEN MADE, BUT NOT TO WHAT COMMENTS, NOR TO WHO MADE THEM
My objections are that the project has failed to deliver as previously stated. There were statements made about their being upmarket shops and a cafe on the pier - I have the photos from the boards put up prior to the development.
WHERE WERE THE STATEMENTS? I RECALL THE COUNCIL ASKING, BACK IN 2005, WHAT SHOULD GO ON THE END OF THE PIER BUT WHO PROMISED UPMARKET SHOPS AND A CAFE ON THE PIER? WHO? AND THE PHOTO'S - WEREN'T THEY JUST ARTISTS' IMPRESSIONS?
Likewise there were statements claiming 13 ft waves, a doubling to 306 days surfing - with the board now on the seafront clearly stating 50m waves.
WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS CLAIMING THAT WAVE HEIGHT AND THE NUMBER OF SURFING DAYS? WHEN? WHERE?
This failure might be dismissed as a self funding mishap whereby it has only cost money that was raised from that location. Unfortunately with the surf pods not selling the council is now faced with a £3m shortfall. Money that will have to come from outside of the development.
SPECULATION. LET'S STICK TO FACTS THAT YOU CAN PROVE.
Local traders have gone on record as saying that the much vaunted surfing based visitors have not materialised. Nor, would I suggest, have the large number of jobs previously cliamed either.
THINK YOU MEAN LOCAL HOTELIERS SAYING THAT THE VISITORS HAVE NOT MATERIALISED, AS REPORTED LAST WEEK IN THE ECHO. (AND PROBABLY TRUE IF THE REEF DOESN'T WORK!)
BUT MORE TO THE POINT, WHO MADE THE CLAIMS ABOUT LARGE NUMBERS OF JOBS? WHO? WHEN?
To put that down solely to the failure of the reef is to ignore the bigger picture. A picture that has enormous gaps where those earlier 'promises' are missing as they have not been fulfilled.
WHO MADE THE PROMISES? IF IT'S ALL A FAILURE, LET'S HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT - I'M SURE THEY'D BE PREPARED TO TAKE THE CREDIT IF IT ALL WENT WELL.
Any argument require verification to underpin it's validity. Any sources that can be easily accessed by others reading this forum should be quoted, and should be permitted.
AND ANY CLAIM THAT IS MADE NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE WORD "SCAM" CREEPS SO OFTEN INTO YOUR POSTS.
AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS, PROVE IT'S A SCAM RATHER THAN ANYTHING ELSE AND I'LL BE THERE WITH YOU.
FOR MY PART, BOSCOMBE SEAFRONT AND PIER LOOK BETTER THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE 1974. AND THAT'S A FACT!
Bob49
says...
12:03pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Does the Echo object to the use of direct quotes from it's own pages ?
If so why ?
And why has there been no explanation from the Echo ?
simonhumby
says...
2:34pm Fri 19 Mar 10
cpolak
says...
1:24pm Sun 21 Mar 10
More Bournemouth stories
- Bournemouth singer invited to perform for family of otters
- New 62-apartment scheme could be approved at Leyton Mount car park site
- Puppet Festival and workshop proves a hit at Lighthouse
- Bournemouth council considering buying more homes in Boscombe
- Ballroom returns to Bournemouth Pavilion
- Winton Zumba teacher overcomes dyslexia to publish book
- Council head urges Boscombe regeneration meeting attendance
- Marathon men - brothers to tackle eight races
- Beesley elected Bournemouth Tory leader
- Scalextric fans hope to rev up a revival with 50 foot track for charity
A surfer uses Boscombe's surf reef
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
fedupwithjobsworths says...
8:19am Mon 15 Mar 10