ARCHITECTS have spoken of the damage the city council has inflicted on itself over the collapse of the Station Approach scheme.

They have criticised the way the council handled the project which was derailed this summer when city councillors voted to start again from scratch.

That left two shortlisted firms, Hopkins Architects from London and the local firm, Design Engine, having invested six-figure sums for nothing.

The architects’ anger raises questions of whether other firms will want to risk working with the council in future.

Kevin Warren, assistant director (estates & regeneration) at the city council, has written to firms, including several local ones, who expressed on interest in the competition.

In a letter seen by the Chronicle, Mr Warren wrote: “The council entered into a process of competitive dialogue with a design competition in good faith, in the belief and expectation that this would produce competitive high quality designs which would be appropriate for Winchester, and this site in particular.

“However, the low score given by the design jury and the reaction of the council to the concept submission suggests that there will be a need to make changes to the concept design in order to make it a design which the Council is able to proceed with.

“The Council will now be considering undertaking a new procurement exercise.

“I would like to thank you again for your interest in this procurement and hope that this outcome will not deter you from bidding for any future contracts with the Council.”

An architect at one of the firms who received the letter said he was unhappy that Mr Warren appeared to be blaming architects who had only followed the brief which has been criticised as squeezing too much into the site.

The architect, who asked not to be identified, said: “The letter seems to imply that the architect’s response was flawed, ‘the design concept received a low score’, which is disingenuous to the architects and their design integrity.

“There seems to be no recognition that the brief was fundamentally flawed requiring significant new development on the cluster of sites, no protection of neighbouring historic buildings as not only was the existing parking required to be re-provided but all new development also had the maximum standard applied.

“This is a historically important bit of city damaged by various development before. It sits on the western side of the walled city and adjacent to a pre-Roman settlement.

“There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between imaging the outcome and writing a brief.

“The bid imposed a gateway part way through the design stage which set minimum viability levels, e.g. bidders needed to provide all the accommodation or they would be disregarded.

“Perhaps commissioning a simple feasibility study to test the brief prior to the design competition, would have demonstrated to the council whether the brief was viable in planning and heritage terms, as well as financial terms.”

he added: “Not only was this a significant waste of time and effort for the architects but a further impact on the reputation of the city council to procure good quality schemes for the long term benefit of the city.”

Another architect, who also asked not to be named, said: “Many firms will think twice, three times before getting involved with the council. They’ve made a real mess of things”.

Council leader Stephen Godfrey acknowledged a problem: “It is very easy to get a reputation but harder to lose it.

“I acknowledge perception is fact even if there is no hard evidence to support it.

“There is a risk that some firms, if they have a choice, may now avoid Winchester because of these problems. The questions is, do they have a choice?”

Cllr Godfrey said the second scheme would see a closer link with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).

“If the council can demonstrate there is a willingness to develop a scheme I think people will see this as an attractive challenge.”