Surf Reef RSS Feed


New inquiry into failing Boscombe surf reef

8:00am Friday 21st May 2010 in


BOSCOMBE’S controversial surf reef is to be the subject of a second council inquiry, following the official confirmation it is not reaching required standards.

A special scrutiny meeting was held last year after it was revealed that the surf reef was almost doubling in price.

And now that process will be repeated again following the news that the original promises about the capabilities of the surf reef were dramatically watered down without all councillors being informed.

A marine expert from Plymouth University this week confirmed the artificial surf reef was not even meeting all of the reduced criteria and gave it a success score of four out of ten.

Conservative Cllr Basil Ratcliffe sparked the second inquiry by submitting a formal request to chief executive Pam Donnellan.

He said he wanted to know which officers recommended acceptance of the reduced criteria and which councillors approved these recommendations.

The result, he said, “reduced the whole concept to a shadow of what members originally understood the reef would provide.”

And he added: “Whatever is spent in ‘tweaking’ the reef, it is not going to give us a 2.2 times increase in wave height and three times more surfing days as was originally advised, as it is not now designed to produce those results.

“An inquiry should bring everything into the open and clear the air.”

The issue will go before a future meeting of the economy and tourism scrutiny panel, chaired by Conservative Cllr Michael Filer. A date will be set in due course.

Related links


Comments(18)

ben111 says...
8:06am Fri 21 May 10

Another surf reef story , give it up ,,, Its going to be a nice weekend and the see will be like a mill pond , So we can all go and sunbath on the big inflatable BED

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Leonard Lodger says...
8:54am Fri 21 May 10

"An inquiry should bring everything into the open and clear the air.” Will this be open to the public???? Or will we be forced to use the freedom of information act yet again. More behind closed doors decisions no doubt. Why even bother, we know the reef doesn't work, Roger spins so much I'm supprised he can stand up, from now on he's known as spinning top...... increased footfall, reduced crime, increased house prices, 6 ft waves. Let me know what planet your on Roger... Wish I was going to get a public sector pension when I retire, but I'm not... I'm paying for yours. And by the way... is that a wig?????

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

jobsworthwatch says...
8:54am Fri 21 May 10

Was this marine expert from Plymouth consulted in the first instance, when the idea of this underwater folly was first put forward? If so what was his reply...total waste of time, don't do it, it'll never work? When are we going to see some naming and shaming of the officers/councillors involved?
ha area-flat!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Gastines says...
8:58am Fri 21 May 10

According to a note on a BBC site,there is to be a PUBLIC meeting held in June to discuss the Reef,it's failings and finances. Perhaps the "Echo" can publish full details of where and when this meeting is being held,in advance for a change?
I'm hoping the question will come up as to why the Council,ie.Public money, £100.000. was paid to relocate the contractors gear to India?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

fedupwithjobsworths says...
9:01am Fri 21 May 10

At low tide this weekend, with the sea like a mill pond we will see the surf reef for what it actually is - a beached whale dead in the water.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

captainscott says...
9:14am Fri 21 May 10

lets waste more money on an enquiry!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

rainbowkisses says...
9:18am Fri 21 May 10

If anybody is actually expecting this to be anything but another behind doors white wash, then they are going to be dissapointed. The Council investigating itself? What a laugh. How about getting the Police to do it, and find out which officers and councillors took back handers to railroad this massive waste of time and money though? Never going to happen though is it? Not when they can decide who does the investigating.We wouldn't normally let these fools collect the dinner money at school. yet we let them have control of millions of pounds of OUR money and let them do what they like with it. They certainly don't seem to be accountable to anybody do they? Their spin doctors are not for our benefit. They are there to make these idiots sound good to each other. If you are expecting anybody to stand up and say "sorry" and resign...... dream on. Can anybody tell me one thing that the council has had control over, that has worked?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

crispy_pants says...
9:30am Fri 21 May 10

If this enquiry ends with a negative result They'll be two down and have to go for "best of five".
.
By the way BEN111, "SEE" sic, you know the wet stuff, has an A in it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

caracus says...
9:34am Fri 21 May 10

Any truth in the rumour that the contractors lodged at a Councilor owned accommodation (paid by the Council), hence making said Councilor a smart profit out of the deal?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Bob49 says...
11:25am Fri 21 May 10

What will it achieve, A bit more handwringing and an awful lot of tosh about wonderful it all looks.

Nearly £12m FOR WHAT ? A debt of £3m plus to the taxpayers. So maybe we could be told exactly
1. how much was paid to the Hemingways ?
2. is there any further payments to the Hemingways in regard to future sales ?
3. what happened the the developments on the end of the pier ?
4. how many of the 60 full time and 30 part time jobs exist ?
5. why was the development allowed to go over the skyline when previously it was not agreed as such ?
6. how much is the council paying for the lifeguard station/staff ?
7. why did the council put double yellow lines up Sea Road if it wanted to attract visitors ?
8. what interests have been declared by councillors in relation to this development/reef ?


It appears now as if any old guff was spouted out by the council to get this devopment built. Quite a few saw through it at the time and spoke out. The many now need to speak out.

We have been left with a pile of worthless sandbags and a pile of debts - for what, to subsidise the holiday homes of wealthy outsiders.



Nag your head in shame Bournemouth. Not so much the councillors as I don't expect better, but so many of the locals who said nothing and more sickeningly those who actively connived in trying to defend this sham.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

boardstiff says...
11:44am Fri 21 May 10

Bob49 wrote:
What will it achieve, A bit more handwringing and an awful lot of tosh about wonderful it all looks.

Nearly £12m FOR WHAT ? A debt of £3m plus to the taxpayers. So maybe we could be told exactly
1. how much was paid to the Hemingways ?
2. is there any further payments to the Hemingways in regard to future sales ?
3. what happened the the developments on the end of the pier ?
4. how many of the 60 full time and 30 part time jobs exist ?
5. why was the development allowed to go over the skyline when previously it was not agreed as such ?
6. how much is the council paying for the lifeguard station/staff ?
7. why did the council put double yellow lines up Sea Road if it wanted to attract visitors ?
8. what interests have been declared by councillors in relation to this development/reef ?


It appears now as if any old guff was spouted out by the council to get this devopment built. Quite a few saw through it at the time and spoke out. The many now need to speak out.

We have been left with a pile of worthless sandbags and a pile of debts - for what, to subsidise the holiday homes of wealthy outsiders.



Nag your head in shame Bournemouth. Not so much the councillors as I don't expect better, but so many of the locals who said nothing and more sickeningly those who actively connived in trying to defend this sham.
I thought that this was to be an inquiry about the reef not performing...

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

FOSF says...
2:18pm Fri 21 May 10

Why waster more public funds on another equiry. There is only one course of action and that is to relieve Roger Brown and all his side kicks of their titles and duties. This should also include the leaders of the Councils for allowing to proceed, and so much funding to be used. Finally, all other projects and contracts that involve any of the above to be looked into for costs, and hidden costs, with the possibility of cancelling the said projects, and starting again. A council equiry will only be out weighed by those who caused the problems or back them in the first place.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Glashen says...
2:23pm Fri 21 May 10

Bob, I don't want to go the same old ground again, but one point You say "for what, to subsidise the holiday homes of wealthy outsiders."
Now we still don't know the final position re: the effect on council tax You assume it will be negative. But those wealthy holiday home owners will be paying council tax,(I guess in excess of £3 million over 10 years) and if have as you say they are all outsiders they won't be using many council services will they?. I know the council tax situation is complex but you are filling in gaps and assuming what the end position will be so maybe you should try to look at a wider picture.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Xchurch-man says...
2:38pm Fri 21 May 10

The second enquiry will of course have already been directed to find that the first report was in error, and that the Surf Reef is indeed perfect.
Thus saving loss of face for the Council.
Dont mock, stranger things have happened!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

WIGGINSv says...
4:29pm Fri 21 May 10

Somebody more 'friendly.'

lol : Sec word: will-work
(in your dreams.)

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Bob49 says...
8:55pm Fri 21 May 10

How is it that whenever I quote from the ECHO the post is taken down ?


There was nothing libellous, inaccurate or offensive contained (unless some find the true facts offensive).

Why the ECHO doesn't want information that it has previously printed, and still has on it's website, posted on this forum begs many questions.



Removing posts on here won't make those figures go away nor will it stop others from asking what is REALLY going on.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

McVICAR says...
10:21pm Fri 21 May 10

I think that they will keep having enquiries untill they get the answer they want, so why cant somebody just say that the dam thing works so that we dont hear any more about it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

reefskeptic says...
9:23am Sat 22 May 10

fyi
.
http://www.stuff.co.
nz/business/industri
es/3726274/Raglan-fi
rm-defends-its-subst
andard-6m-reef

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

More Surf Reef stories


Most popular







Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses