Boscombe surf reef designed 'for fun, not coast protection' (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Boscombe surf reef designed 'for fun, not coast protection'
8:00am Monday 18th January 2010 in
BOSCOMBE’S controversial surf reef was never designed with coastal protection in mind, a Bournemouth councillor has claimed.
Cllr Basil Ratcliffe has hit back at comments from David Weight, who first proposed the reef in 1993, that it was now providing protection for the coast. Cllr Ratcliffe, a past cabinet member for the environment, said the project was always intended as a “fun thing” and not a conservation measure.
Mr Weight told the Daily Echo on Saturday, January 16, that despite the reef’s limitations,it did “appear to be providing good coast protection”.
But Cllr Ratcliffe, ward member for East Southbourne and Tuckton, dismissed such claims as “absolute tripe”.
He said: “To suggest now it was intended to provide coastal protection is trying to make up for the fact it is not doing what it is supposed to.
“If there had been any coastal protection element, the reef would have been part funded by Defra.
“Right from the beginning it was never suggested it was to be anything other than a fun thing.”
Indeed, early advice from experts indicated that the reef could even accelerate erosion further down the coast, said Cllr Ratcliffe.
Checks were made to monitor if any effect would be significant, he added.
Mr Weight was due to address a full council meeting at the Town Hall on Tuesday,January 19.
He is expected to recommend “tweaking” the reef to provide a smoother platform for breaking waves.
Cllr Ratcliffe said that were any adjustments needed for the reef, constructors ASR should be the ones to pay.
“If there are faults it should be down to them to fix them,” he said.
Comments(21)
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
10:21am Mon 18 Jan 10
Mediclogan5
says...
10:47am Mon 18 Jan 10
y one that can surf!
Leonard Lodger
says...
10:58am Mon 18 Jan 10
Secondly, why the spectre of Health and Safety was not discussed in detail till the reef was almost finished. Could this be why the RNLI has taken up a year round posting to advise surfers of possible dangers?
The comments above firmly indicate the reef was built as a "fun thing", if thats true, why the need for year round lifeguard cover? Perhaps the council thought the reef was for one and all to use, only realising weeks before the official opening its for experienced surfers (who seem to be voting with their feet) who have surfed reefs before not visitors to hire a board and just paddle out.
Whilst I respect the comments from council ex or otherwise, there seems to be some conflict here as to the reasons for the reefs construction. Was it built for the people of Bournemouth or just a few experienced locals. If so when did the penny drop?
Now... with regard to the "Chairman" of the Wessex Surf Club's postings to the previous reef encounter about lights at the end of the piers being supplied by wave powered pistons and his claim to have come up with the idea years before..... Methinks young Mr Penwarden looked into this (minus the crackpot wave piston idea) some time before that.
Yet again you can fool some of the people some of.... oh well, we all know how it goes.
Leonard Lodger. Chaiman of the Boscombe Cross-Dressing Surfers Against Slingbacks Asociation.
Skono
says...
11:41am Mon 18 Jan 10
The drum that I keep banging is that the reef will kill someone before too long when we got raped for £3,660,000.00
And finally, how in God's name do you 'Tweak' a massive pile of sand bags under the surface of the sea using a crane and a digger? Tweaking is defined as
1. To pinch, pluck, or twist sharply.
2. To adjust; fine-tune.
3. To make fun of; tease.
Point 3 says it all I think as we all shout in unison WHITE ELEPHANT once again.
Also interesting to see in The Times Homes supplement that Barrett homes are no longer using the words 'Boscombe SURF REEF' now in favour of 'New Artificial Reef', could that be because of all the bad press I wonder?
Aviewoneverything
says...
12:21pm Mon 18 Jan 10
Gastines
says...
12:40pm Mon 18 Jan 10
SFRA
says...
12:41pm Mon 18 Jan 10
jboris
says...
12:52pm Mon 18 Jan 10
There is a bad smell about the whole thing. Conflict of interest perhaps?
Leonard Lodger
says...
1:13pm Mon 18 Jan 10
The point is planning, financial planning. Lets not forget the Overstrand complex over-run, the Imax (that looks like an unattractive carpet warehouse) still empty and ugly, investment in Icelandic banks etc etc...... and thankfully the recent demise of the Bournemouth Gardens Casino project that by past experience would have ended up as pointless or unused. If the council had to compete in the real world they could well be insolvent. But..... as long as the public sit back nothing will ever change.
As well as members we have a CEO in chambers, where the buck must stop. With respect, when will she comment?
Enough of the experts, enough of the hype and enough back pedalling from those involved. Perhaps a little more honesty is needed and maybe an apology or does that need tweaking too?
Leonard Lodger, Chairman of the Cross-Dressing Surfers Against Slingbacks Association.
Maureen Arthur
says...
4:41pm Mon 18 Jan 10
Leonard Lodger wrote:lol!!!!!!!!!!!!
Firstly, perhaps someone can explain why the one of the original plans for the reef to be situated at the end of the pier providing two "world class waves" was scrapped only to be situated under the foot of the Barrat development. I seem to recall a council member wanting a water taxi facitlty instead, shame no one could jump the 30 feet to get on board. Secondly, why the spectre of Health and Safety was not discussed in detail till the reef was almost finished. Could this be why the RNLI has taken up a year round posting to advise surfers of possible dangers? The comments above firmly indicate the reef was built as a "fun thing", if thats true, why the need for year round lifeguard cover? Perhaps the council thought the reef was for one and all to use, only realising weeks before the official opening its for experienced surfers (who seem to be voting with their feet) who have surfed reefs before not visitors to hire a board and just paddle out. Whilst I respect the comments from council ex or otherwise, there seems to be some conflict here as to the reasons for the reefs construction. Was it built for the people of Bournemouth or just a few experienced locals. If so when did the penny drop? Now... with regard to the "Chairman" of the Wessex Surf Club's postings to the previous reef encounter about lights at the end of the piers being supplied by wave powered pistons and his claim to have come up with the idea years before..... Methinks young Mr Penwarden looked into this (minus the crackpot wave piston idea) some time before that. Yet again you can fool some of the people some of.... oh well, we all know how it goes. Leonard Lodger. Chaiman of the Boscombe Cross-Dressing Surfers Against Slingbacks Asociation.
reefwatching
says...
4:56pm Mon 18 Jan 10
tt52
says...
5:02pm Mon 18 Jan 10
Bob49
says...
5:19pm Mon 18 Jan 10
Who really made money out of this scam will continue to be masked by this endless spurious tosh about what was never going to be more than a cosmetic front for the real intent.
bigjohn
says...
5:48pm Mon 18 Jan 10
jboris
says...
7:38pm Mon 18 Jan 10
Bob49 wrote:"Who really made money out of this scam will continue to be masked by this endless spurious tosh about what was never going to be more than a cosmetic front for the real intent"
" I accept the motivation for the whole project was for the greater good of the area " Nonsense. The project was about handing over a prime piece of real esate to developers and other interested parties. It needed some kind of excuse or twaddle about a greater good to delude the terminally dim that this was a 'good thing'. One the go ahead was given to this money making scam everything else wasc quickly forgotten. The planning regulations on the height of the flats were ignored, the supposed shops and cafe on the pier head were quietly dropped and the all singing, all dancing surfpods have been offered up as a means of covering the deficit (caused by the lack of concern in constructing this farce) with no bother to their true worth.
Who really made money out of this scam will continue to be masked by this endless spurious tosh about what was never going to be more than a cosmetic front for the real intent.
Well said, there has to be an investigation.
Leonard Lodger
says...
1:14pm Wed 20 Jan 10
Why dont you go down and ask the people who surf the reef if they pay council tax, thats if you can ever find anyone on it. Whilst your there ask the owners of the bar or shop how much business rates they pay.
And..... get a map even if you lack brain cells, the recent fire was no where near the seafront. Methinks engage brain before mouth might just be sound advice for some.
The regeneration has been a limited success. Ok, the sculptures and plinths look like something knocked up by a dodgy builder, there is no longer the parking there once was and the reef may well provide spectator sport watching touros come to grief. But, one can now dine with middle aged Mums trying to look like their teenage daughters, put up with rudness from some of the residents who live in Reef Towers and marvel at the spectacle of a pier that has no use other than as a walk out to sea without getting your pants wet.
I for one regret the whole project, no longer can I stagger about with a can of Special Brew, do smack or annoy visitors. I'm just not welcome.
Leonard Lodger, Chairman of The Boscombe (Its quite nice here, but dont tell anyone because they think its a dump) Cross Dressing Surfers Against Slingbacks.
time nor Tide
says...
1:00pm Thu 21 Jan 10
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=I32YYoH2I
g0
its not too much to expect that should not change? Leonard and bob49 , you are not suggesting that this wavetank was just a guise and trick to gain peoples confidence are you? I guess it may not be possible to have the real thing behave this way consistantly to be a relevent amenity? If that is the case then something may be amiss in the state of denmark?
time nor Tide
says...
10:07pm Thu 21 Jan 10
ncern.org.uk/index.p
hp?page=diversion-of
-tsunami-funds
Here you can find the reason for taking tsunami funds has flip-flopped from surfing back to shoreline protection ( as the shoreline isnt in danger at this beach but who cares when you can double the cost of the reef)
help the poor folk in that area by writing the minister noted by the british group in the link. If you support the boscombe reef you can tell the Indian government all about its wonderfull sucess and plethura of benefits arising from the constructed cornacopia of goodness for peoples welfare. How the 5000 fishermen that got arrested protesting just didnt undertstand what a reef believer (investor) does. Help the government there decide to press on with the double the size -double the cost artificial surfing/erosion control (flipflops depending on the audience) reef using donated tsunami relief funding.
reefskeptic
says...
8:57pm Fri 29 Jan 10
The new sports on the (sand depleted ) pebbly beach will be thrilling for everybody?
They may even replace the surf reef as the main attraction.
There will be "dodge the blame", "evade the question", "find a second that surfer stands up for a moment" and "dont spread any rumours about olympic interest in the surf reef as it wont happen." , "distract from the reality" and then "dont look at the piers when there's waves".
Of course the old favourite of "pretend its real " which is fun every time.
All adding up to a fantasy world of Mt Olympus proportions.
At least the Imax can be turned on at demand and produce a credible income from the newgen 3d content being distributed.
Oh I forgot about the most scurillous deviant activity of "pretend the reef is sucessfull".
All of this doesnt mean that doubling the size of the reef again and tweeking what exists may not add a few meters to the existing ride length of a few meters. A worthy goal for the builder to pursue?
But their contract of providing a facility based on the sales model wave tank is all that is required for people to be satisfied. But then there is the question of validity of the sales pitch ratepayer funded report conclusion.
"Reef 21 causes a height
reinforcement of 1.3-2.0
times (relative to the height
in front of the reef), which
is a significant height
improvement for the small
wave climate at Boscombe.
Importantly, the increased
height occurs down the full
length of the reef as there
are no significant wave
shadows."
So thats what was purchased and what should be provided. The 5 people who wrote that report were paid a great deal of money to provide that promise and now it should be fulfilled.
time nor Tide
says...
11:00pm Thu 4 Feb 10
unty.us/environmenta
l_management/Artific
ialSurfingReef.cfm
this a a very detailed multidisciplinary study that is wise to read. It has implications for this reef and council. yes ASr were part of the study team. It has a shock conclusion that is a real suprise.
(deny-risk?) funny!
More Surf Reef stories
- Researchers look into value of £3m Boscombe surf reef
- Boscombe surf reef: Marine firms claim ASR owes them £60,000
- Sub-contractor wins county court judgement against ASR
- Boat strike at surf reef is no longer ‘clear cut’
- £150,000 in reserve cash being spent on surf reef
- ASR to come back in 2012 to improve surf reef
- Handling of surf reef not been our 'finest hour'
- Future of Boscombe surf reef hangs in balance
- Weather delays surf reef repairs
- Work begins on Boscombe Surf Reef
FLASHBACK: Roger Brown, leisure services director for Bournemouth, launches the surf reef
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Was Charlie says...
8:44am Mon 18 Jan 10
As a result of spending this amount of their money, will council tax payers see (among other benefits):
Improvements in services such as those for the elderly and vulnerable, education, refuse, street cleaning?
Improved car parking?
Many more jobs?
A reduction in future council tax because of increased insome in the town?
Less congestion in the town?
Fewer empty shops?
More businesses?
Or, if acually works as a surf reef, just provide a playground for a few as the council tax payers' expense, with their money gone, just used to pay for some sand and canvas with no benefit to the majority?