That surf reef: I was surprised to read in your recent illustrated article on the reef that the Borough Council are of the opinion that the photograph in the Echo simply shows the effect of the boat strike over a year ago.

To me it is obvious that the now grossly distorted appearance of the reef is due to both missing or moved bags and misshapen ones due to a seeming loss of contents.

One bag being torn open by a boat strike and another pushed out of place simply do not explain what is now evident. This gives rise to the question, are bags leaking or were they not properly filled in the first place and the contents have simply settled?

It was to be expected that further damage would take place due to the poor placing of the bags during construction, leaving large gaps between adjacent bags.

The force of waves breaking on the upper surface of the reef then acts in these large gaps creating both upward and sideways forces and producing lateral movement as shown in your picture.

Interestingly, the first so called “surf reef” at Gold Coast, Australia, which was actually built for coastal protection purposes and not as a leisure attraction, has also suffered a considerable degree of bags being moved by large waves in this manner leaving these scattered alongside the main structure.

I am sure this was to be expected there with the severe storms experienced at this location, but Bournemouth is in a sheltered bay!

Having had no part in drawing up the contractual arrangements whilst a councillor, I now find it very difficult to understand why there was no financial security bond or guarantee of performance so that in the event of the reef not performing as it should, the council would have been able to obtain redress and not have been left with nothing for their money.

I think that we must all now accept that the whole idea of recreational surf reefs built in this manner, as opposed to coastal defence measures, is at too early a stage to ensure the success that everyone is seeking.

BASIL RATCLIFFE, Southbourne