‘No more cash’ for Boscombe surf reef contractors (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
‘No more cash’ for Boscombe surf reef contractors
8:00am Thursday 27th May 2010 in
“THERE ain’t no more money in the kitty” – that’s Bournemouth council’s warning to surf reef contractor ASR as the company prepares to make a return visit.
The New Zealand-based firm will be coming back to Boscombe in June to consider ways of improving the reef’s performance. It’s hoped this will result in proposed modifications being put before councillors in July.
But councillors have been quick to reassure taxpayers they will not foot the bill for the remedial works.
Last week, it was revealed the reef was failing to live up to expectations, meeting only four of the 11 criteria set out in the reef contract.
Service director Roger Brown told a meeting of Bournemouth’s cabinet they were currently withholding the £75,000 performance-based payment that was due to ASR six months after completion.
A further £75,000, due at a later date, will also be withheld if the reef fails to meet the agreed criteria.
Cllr Peter Charon drew applause when he asked: “Should we not be giving the officers a clear steer that there ain’t no more money in the kitty as far as the council is concerned?”
And council leader Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin said: “Contractually it’s quite a clear situation we’re in. We’re entitled to expect the design contractor to deliver something that meets the specification. Until they do, they won’t be entitled to any part of the performance money.”
Councillors agreed to suspend monitoring of the reef for now but agreed the reef should be monitored for a full year after ASR has had a chance to modify it.
Asked who would pay for this monitoring exercise, Mr Brown confirmed: “That will need to be looked at within the negotiations with ASR.”
Cllr Basil Ratcliffe questioned why the reef criteria appeared to have been downgraded and Cllr Roger West said he had little confidence in ASR’s ability to fix the problem.
The discussion sparked a warning from executive director Tony Williams against using inappropriate language. “Words like ‘misleading’, ‘squandered’ and ‘beyond belief’ may play well with the local media but they don’t have a place in this chamber,” he said.
Comments(38)
rainbowkisses
says...
9:39am Thu 27 May 10
....... I wish that fool would sit down and shut up. It was him and his cronies that got us into this mess in the first place. Now he trying to make out how tough he is with ASR. Going by what I have seen, the Contract was written to benefit ASR NOT the Bournemouth tax payers. If this fool is in charge of the IMAX contract, we will be going through all this again, unless he gets booted out next year, which I really hope happens. I expect Mr Echo will delete this comment again, they really don't like it when anybody says something against their best mate MacLoughlin........p
s, love the security word "vote-want"
GB916
says...
11:10am Thu 27 May 10
noel1
says...
1:08pm Thu 27 May 10
rainbowkisses wrote:It is unfair on Mr MacLoughlin to say he is responsible for this mess. The planning permission for the Reef was given in 2004, and the contracts for the 'downgraded specification' reef were signed in the 2004/2005/2006 period.
And council leader Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin said: “Contractually it’s quite a clear situation we’re in. We’re entitled to expect the design contractor to deliver something that meets the specification. Until they do, they won’t be entitled to any part of the performance money.”...........
....... I wish that fool would sit down and shut up. It was him and his cronies that got us into this mess in the first place. Now he trying to make out how tough he is with ASR. Going by what I have seen, the Contract was written to benefit ASR NOT the Bournemouth tax payers. If this fool is in charge of the IMAX contract, we will be going through all this again, unless he gets booted out next year, which I really hope happens. I expect Mr Echo will delete this comment again, they really don't like it when anybody says something against their best mate MacLoughlin........p
s, love the security word "vote-want"
Remember Mr MacLoughlin and his party were the 'opposition' to the LibDems during that period.
The only ones to blame for this white elephant are the LibDems.
It was never going to work because the winds and tides in Poole Bay run the wrong way.
I thought when the costs doubled the first time Cllr MacLoughlin had ordered an insurance policy be put in place to it to cover the eventuality that the reef didn't work the cost could be recovered. About time to contact the Insurance Company I think.
whingeyminge
says...
1:25pm Thu 27 May 10
.
Glashen
says...
2:27pm Thu 27 May 10
noel1 wrote:I think the blame can be evenly spread between the Conservatives and Liberals, in fact when the original plans were mooted in 1999 the Conservatives were the largest party and it was them in charge for the actual construction, so the frankly poor project management can be laid at their door.
rainbowkisses wrote:It is unfair on Mr MacLoughlin to say he is responsible for this mess. The planning permission for the Reef was given in 2004, and the contracts for the 'downgraded specification' reef were signed in the 2004/2005/2006 period.
And council leader Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin said: “Contractually it’s quite a clear situation we’re in. We’re entitled to expect the design contractor to deliver something that meets the specification. Until they do, they won’t be entitled to any part of the performance money.”...........
....... I wish that fool would sit down and shut up. It was him and his cronies that got us into this mess in the first place. Now he trying to make out how tough he is with ASR. Going by what I have seen, the Contract was written to benefit ASR NOT the Bournemouth tax payers. If this fool is in charge of the IMAX contract, we will be going through all this again, unless he gets booted out next year, which I really hope happens. I expect Mr Echo will delete this comment again, they really don't like it when anybody says something against their best mate MacLoughlin........p
s, love the security word "vote-want"
Remember Mr MacLoughlin and his party were the 'opposition' to the LibDems during that period.
The only ones to blame for this white elephant are the LibDems.
It was never going to work because the winds and tides in Poole Bay run the wrong way.
I thought when the costs doubled the first time Cllr MacLoughlin had ordered an insurance policy be put in place to it to cover the eventuality that the reef didn't work the cost could be recovered. About time to contact the Insurance Company I think.
-
But the project as you say was actually committed to by the Liberal administration and many of the mistakes in the set up with ASR stem from that time.
-
Regarding whether the reef could ever have worked, you may be right in that it could never meet all expectations, but the fact is Surfers do use the beaches, so it must be possible to achieve some improvement. The MoD pipe at Kimmeridge seems to have a beneficial effect on surfing conditions by accident so why not by intention.
-
One minor point the reef itself did not require planning permission, I think you are referring to cabinet approval.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
3:03pm Thu 27 May 10
GB916 wrote:Ahoy 'GB916'
I think we should wave goodbye to this story,its all a bit flat now,sorry had to say that
And i be sorry ye did say it as well, do not include 'me' in yer statement. I not given ye permission to be a part of 'WE!!' If thou has given up so be it, do however let others make thier own choices.
jobsworthwatch
says...
3:29pm Thu 27 May 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.) wrote:Yep! We should keep sniping away until as stated in a previous Echo article... 'all the problems have been ironed out'... which I take to mean that the reef should be flattened thus returning it to a natural sea bed and Bournemouth gets a full refund plus compensation!
GB916 wrote: I think we should wave goodbye to this story,its all a bit flat now,sorry had to say thatAhoy 'GB916' And i be sorry ye did say it as well, do not include 'me' in yer statement. I not given ye permission to be a part of 'WE!!' If thou has given up so be it, do however let others make thier own choices.
reefwatching
says...
3:38pm Thu 27 May 10
Glashen
says...
3:56pm Thu 27 May 10
Of course they could try to sue ASR but that would be dependent on ASR failing to remedy the defects from the design spec, which they are already disputing.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
4:13pm Thu 27 May 10
reefwatching wrote:Ahoy ‘reefwatching’
Does anyone know whether ASR have insurance (professional indemnity) on this, as would be usual for the designers of such a project? I heard a dark rumour that the council had agreed to no insurance from ASR, which if true, would mark a new high-mark of incompetence. All the council will ever is to just keep the £150k, anything more is out of reach.
Ye do raise an important point regarding insurances and that would be the way for any ‘competent’ business venture prior to proceeding. Be much the same to inquire if the new ‘owners’ of ASR be responsible for ASRs liabilities, It be salty taste in me mouth when I read Mr Kerry Black had sold his shares in ASR earlier this year but still retained as a consultant and I be a wondering why??
What about the auditor’s findings of ASRs outstanding payments due to BBC of nearly £300k? So the withheld £150k aint a ‘negotiating’ amount of gold coinage to worry ASR.
However, the conspirators in this shameful plot must be held accountable, whether they already left the sinking ship, are disposed to jump any minute, at a later date or indeed are now purporting to flex their muscles/mussels. Be this a dereliction of duty to their ‘office?’
Adrian Fudge
says...
4:41pm Thu 27 May 10
noel1 wrote:Good attempt to shift the blame
rainbowkisses wrote: And council leader Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin said: “Contractually it’s quite a clear situation we’re in. We’re entitled to expect the design contractor to deliver something that meets the specification. Until they do, they won’t be entitled to any part of the performance money.”........... ....... I wish that fool would sit down and shut up. It was him and his cronies that got us into this mess in the first place. Now he trying to make out how tough he is with ASR. Going by what I have seen, the Contract was written to benefit ASR NOT the Bournemouth tax payers. If this fool is in charge of the IMAX contract, we will be going through all this again, unless he gets booted out next year, which I really hope happens. I expect Mr Echo will delete this comment again, they really don't like it when anybody says something against their best mate MacLoughlin........p s, love the security word "vote-want"It is unfair on Mr MacLoughlin to say he is responsible for this mess. The planning permission for the Reef was given in 2004, and the contracts for the 'downgraded specification' reef were signed in the 2004/2005/2006 period. Remember Mr MacLoughlin and his party were the 'opposition' to the LibDems during that period. The only ones to blame for this white elephant are the LibDems. It was never going to work because the winds and tides in Poole Bay run the wrong way. I thought when the costs doubled the first time Cllr MacLoughlin had ordered an insurance policy be put in place to it to cover the eventuality that the reef didn't work the cost could be recovered. About time to contact the Insurance Company I think.
The Contract was signed by the current Tory administration at double the original price that was being disgussed supposedly because they had negotiated a better deal
Having said that at least you and I agree that it was never going to work because of the tidal flow in the bay and I said so at the time but the "experts" poo pooed it
This has been an unmittigated disaster and demonstrates how dificult it is for Councillors , of any persuasion, to prevent schemes like this proceeding when the majority are enticed with the utopia being presented by the officers and consultants.
One of the main influences that everyone is also ignoring is that a large number of Councillors, again from all parties , were insisting that the Capital receipt from the housing development was spent in that area instead of being used for other Capital schemes that could have been more benefitial.
I dont think there was an "insurance policy" only the idea of withholding the £300K until it worked
Does anyone really believe that the contractor is going to waste his time and money trying to make something work that at the end of the day won't incurring more cost for no return. I think not
reefwatching
says...
4:53pm Thu 27 May 10
Some people on here are confusing professional liability with consumer rights – I’m afraid to say that just because it does not work does not mean BBC can simply get a refund.
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
5:17pm Thu 27 May 10
jobsworthwatch wrote:1,000,000 X less (£3.10) is out of their league - I wouldn't trust them with the steam of my ****.
In the news this week-"Olympic sized swimming pool and leisure complex opened in Hillingdon"! At £31 million, 10x the cost of the surf reef, possibly out of our jobsworths league (could we trust them with that amount of money?). Even so, had resources here been put into something similar it could be used by everyone and would be available 100% of the time, far more use to the residents of Bournemouth than this dis-functional, minority sport underwater folly!
mta
says...
6:12pm Thu 27 May 10
Pro bono publico
says...
11:32pm Thu 27 May 10
FOSF
says...
11:57pm Thu 27 May 10
reefskeptic
says...
9:29am Fri 28 May 10
.
http://www.stuff.co.
nz/taranaki-daily-ne
ws/news/3684453/Turb
ulent-dispute-over-s
urf-reef-could-be-he
aded-for-court
Azphreal
says...
11:26am Fri 28 May 10
Bob49
says...
1:41pm Fri 28 May 10
Anyone who was aware that some kind of 'benefit' was needed to mask the true intent - flogging off a bit of our heritage to make money. Even if this absurdity have functioned as claimed it would not have attracted familes or led to this supposed tsunami of wealth washing up Sea Road cleansing all before it.
Uou've been had. Not by this failure but by the failure to see the real intent here. An enclosed, gated development for the priviliged few hiding behind some spurious tosh aboy regeneration.
No one, but no one will ever convince me that the work carried out by the council (not Barratts/Surf Shop,cafe stuff) was worth the nigh on £12m that was spent. Of which it looks like we've now got to stump up £3m plus to bail it out ! ! !
However 'less unpleasant' the area is now that is merely carried out as a means of enhancing the value of the properties in Moneycombe 'village' rather than for any local regeneration.
So maybe when a few folk stop regarding this as would someone complaining that the great train robbers broke the guards van doors, we might then just begin to get a grasp of the real story here.
psatlast
says...
2:07pm Fri 28 May 10
reefwatching
says...
4:26pm Fri 28 May 10
reefskeptic
says...
10:29pm Fri 28 May 10
time nor Tide
says...
10:11am Sat 29 May 10
Just look at the various pictures and what is your opinion?
whingeyminge
says...
3:08pm Sat 29 May 10
Stonehenge - oh yes - that's a nice attaction. You don't see the bottom stones on top of the top stones at Stonehenge. Not like this reef - upside down it is. That's why it doesn't even work. Well done reefwatching. All those surfers and university people and those ASR people - they didn't see it was upside down and you did. And you could see it when it was underwater. It's good you're sticking up for people like us. Nice families won't go to see an atrraction that's upside down.
whinge Whinge WHinge WHInge WHINge WHINGe WHINGE WHINGE! WHINGE!! WHINGE!!!
time nor Tide
says...
4:39pm Sat 29 May 10
caracus
says...
4:46pm Sat 29 May 10
noel1 wrote:Personally I think MacLaughlin has zero respect and should resign or be fired from his position not just for his support of the reef but for his pooorn antics on the laptop. Beesley should be fired for ignoring planning permission to Barretts who have added extra floors to the Honeycombe scam building and as for Brown, he is clearly taking the micky by still picking up his gross salary, All these three are paid over the top money by us. Maybe we should withhold our council tax ubtil these self servers are removed.
rainbowkisses wrote:It is unfair on Mr MacLoughlin to say he is responsible for this mess. The planning permission for the Reef was given in 2004, and the contracts for the 'downgraded specification' reef were signed in the 2004/2005/2006 period.
And council leader Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin said: “Contractually it’s quite a clear situation we’re in. We’re entitled to expect the design contractor to deliver something that meets the specification. Until they do, they won’t be entitled to any part of the performance money.”...........
....... I wish that fool would sit down and shut up. It was him and his cronies that got us into this mess in the first place. Now he trying to make out how tough he is with ASR. Going by what I have seen, the Contract was written to benefit ASR NOT the Bournemouth tax payers. If this fool is in charge of the IMAX contract, we will be going through all this again, unless he gets booted out next year, which I really hope happens. I expect Mr Echo will delete this comment again, they really don't like it when anybody says something against their best mate MacLoughlin........p
s, love the security word "vote-want"
Remember Mr MacLoughlin and his party were the 'opposition' to the LibDems during that period.
The only ones to blame for this white elephant are the LibDems.
It was never going to work because the winds and tides in Poole Bay run the wrong way.
I thought when the costs doubled the first time Cllr MacLoughlin had ordered an insurance policy be put in place to it to cover the eventuality that the reef didn't work the cost could be recovered. About time to contact the Insurance Company I think.
time nor Tide
says...
4:53pm Sat 29 May 10
whingeyminge
says...
6:00pm Sat 29 May 10
And there's more we can complain about - oh yes there is. Killer pitbulls and thier muck all over the park. That fountain - well I never. Who's going to come to Boscombe with a fountain like that. Tattoos on everyone and hair that needs a cut. You can try to stop us but this is the place for us to complain. Sainsburys - that used to be a good place to complain, but those young girls on the tills these days won't give you a minute. Oh no - too busy sending your items down faster than you can pack them on purpose and then drumming their fingers. And the Post Offiec. That's a good place to complain. But this internet - this will let folk know you can have a good complain in Bournemouth - then we might get some decent people to visit.
colin 50
says...
9:35pm Sat 29 May 10
time nor Tide
says...
11:18pm Sat 29 May 10
Moaning Minni
says...
12:38pm Sun 30 May 10
caracus
says...
6:23pm Sun 30 May 10
caracus
says...
6:24pm Sun 30 May 10
time nor Tide
says...
8:33am Wed 2 Jun 10
.
http://www.bayofplen
tytimes.co.nz/local/
news/our-view-dont-g
o-in-water-thinking-
its-safe/3915101/
peter hurt
says...
11:44am Wed 2 Jun 10
woolamai
says...
4:39pm Thu 3 Jun 10
sherlock_holmes
says...
9:59am Fri 18 Jun 10
.
After all you have said, claimed and got -how you you talk with any sort of guise at all?
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
GIVE US A WAVE: Body boarding on the Surf Reef back in March
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
jobsworthwatch says...
8:52am Thu 27 May 10