They have been working on the project since 1999, yet have only made it public in the last 6 weeks, and want to start work in July – Source Bill Murphy, Project Manager

above Aberdeen Beach Setup

They want to dump 18,000 tonnes of rock on Aberdeen beach, and 70,000 cubic tonnes of sand which will be brought especially in. This will be developed into 50 metre long rock groynes, and 20 metres wide. Each boulder within the groyne will be 4-6 tonnes in weight, the sand that will deposited in the area will constantly move out of the area, and consequently will need to be replenished regularly. All this without looking at the effect this will have on the environment in the region.

The BSA have proposed a cheaper, more environmentally, and economically sustainable solution – yet the Designers and Project Manager have discounted this, and refuse to explain why.

I hasten to add, before you read the following, the BSA is an independent, non-profit organisation, who are here to represent the 50,000 surfers in Scotland, and the 500,000 in the Great Britain overall.

The surfing industry in the Great Britain is worth £200 million per year, and the BSA estimates that surfers visiting the waves at the Aberdeen bring in between £500,000 and £1million per annum to the local economy. Yet the council provide them with no amenities and are more than happy to destroy their wave by placing hundreds of tonnes of external material on top of it.

above Aberdeen Beach Setup

The key points to remember are:
1. Reefs which combine coastal protection and surfing benefits (multi-purpose) have already been built, and more are planned worldwide. A multi-purpose reef was built at Narrrowneck on Australia’s’ Gold Coast. This also improved surfing and fishery enhancement and won the Queensland State’s Environmental Award for construction projects. A new reef in New Zealand, funded by a charity for surfing enhancement, has already demonstrated significant coastal protection and fishery enhancement benefits. In the UK, a design for a multi-purpose reef has been developed for Borth in West Wales, which has a similar tidal range. This awaiting approval from the Welsh Assembly. Multi-purpose reefs are now one of two options being considered for coastal protection in Poole Bay.

2. No Environmental Impact Survey has been done – only an analysis. This is a weaker document, and is just the Designer’s (Halcrow) opinion.

3. The BSA proposed through ASR ( http://www.asrltd.co.nz/ ) to Bill Murphy (Project Manager – Aberdeen) a multi-purpose offshore reef. The Designer’s (Halcrow) were at the meeting and promised to get back to ASR – they never did. The BSA have since heard from Bill Murphy and Halcrow that they have done modelling that show’s reef’s do not work – yet when the BSA requested to see the data and models they both refuse.

above Aberdeen Surfer on a pearl of a right hander wave

4. The Council’s Principle Engineer / Project Manager (Bill Murphy) is a road builder so all his information comes from Halcrow (the designers) – Halcrow have no expertise in designing or constructing multi-purpose reef’s. Thus they do not recommend them, plus they estimate the cost of an offshore reef to be £10million – our solution is only £1-2 million, is multi-purpose solution and comes considerably under the cost of the present project proposed. They also see an offshore reef as solely a recreational solution, ours is multi-purpose solution. So it solves the erosion of the coast, as well as benefiting the socio-economic development of the area.

5. Defra removed Halcrow from a similar project in Poole Bay (Dorset) due to poor evaluation of multi-purpose reefs. The BSA would suggest that perhaps a similar action maybe occurring here.

6. All of the Environment Agency’s concerned have only had Halcrow’s design pitched to them, none to our knowledge have had a multi-purpose reef option put to them.

7. As you can see from the comments below there are several bodies out there who are concerned that the process that has occurred to date has not gone far enough to assess all the potential impacts of the project. The BSA as the executive body fully support the 50,000 surfers of Scotland and will endeavour to do everything in our power to prevent the further destruction of the Scottish environment.

8. The BSA have e-mailed Ms Judith Tracy of the Scottish Executive on several occasions in early December 2005 to put our case, she has yet to reply.

9. All the BSA are asking for is to be allowed to fairly have a multi-purpose offshore reef considered as another option, and for all those concerned to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of both proposals. We feel sure that if this occurred a multi-purpose reef option would prevail.

We believe that Aberdeen City Council and Bill Murphy have potentially been negligent and at best naive in solely listening to Halcrow. We as the national governing body for surfing in Great Britain and the Channel Islands would be prepared to take legal action and appeal for a judicial review if this project goes ahead.

Ben Farwagi - ben@6ftoffshore.com 07740622310
Dave Weight - david.weight@ntlworld.com 01202 749920 / 07764 353540
BSA Environmental Committee