'We are pushing ourselves back into Silver Hill hell'

City councillors on the overview and scrutiny committee on Monday grilled their officers after cabinet chose in principle to appoint bidder B as the designer for Station Approach.

This follows a criticised design competition which saw three of the five shortlisted architects drop out.

The remaining firms, Design Engine from Winchester, and Hopkins Architects from London, submitted designs for offices and flats to a jury of experts which included architects, urban designers, engineers and councillors.

They recommended bidder B, believed to be Hopkins, to the cabinet which was approved at the cabinet meeting last Wednesday.

Overview and scrutiny committee members quizzed the team, including council leader Stephen Godfrey, about this decision and questioned how the competition could be competitive with only two firms.

Cllr Martin Tod condemned the process: “We have a failed process that has lead to two failed designs. How can we have a competitive design competition with only two architects?

“In terms of quality, they have been marked by the jury as ‘barely adequate’. I have doubt that the jury liked design B.”

He asked the team: “Did they like it?”

Cllr Godfrey responded: “The jury were not asked that, they were asked what design do they prefer.”

The jury marked bidder B’s design 40 per cent overall. Cllr Kim Gottlieb called this mark “an F”.

Cllr Tod also asked how the scheme could now proceed as it lacked public confidence.

He added: “I think we need a process that allows the public to be adequately involved as this one did not. I do not believe we can proceed with the scheme.

“We have picked a design and not a designer and all our experience says we are now in a world of extreme confinement. We are pushing ourselves back into Silver Hill hell.”

At the cabinet last week, Chris Higgins, former director of estates at Winchester University, said he had lost faith with the council.

He said: “I tried to be as supportive as I could but I have lost confidence that the city council has what it takes to develop the best scheme.”

I am really sad because I tried to help but I think the whole thing is going off the rails.”

Mr Higgins accused the council of not being transparent enough during the competition.

“We have not seen a detailed score (from the jury) published for bidder C. Forty per cent of the marks were commercial. This is supposed to be a design competition not a commercial one.”

He added: “I am not convinced that (the scores for bidder B) have not been skewed.”

Cllr Godfrey blasted Mr Higgins saying the allegation was unfair: “That is not fair for you to come here and claim this. It is detrimental to the jury and the council.”

Corporate director Steve Tilbury said: “The detail for bidder C’s score is not in the report because there were unsuccessful in their application.”

The committee also said they were not happy with the recommendations that were put through.

These were: that Cabinet confirm their intention to take forward the development of Station Approach and to agree in principle the appointment of bidder B, subject to further advice on the legal, financial and design parameters.

However, the committee rewrote these recommendations which will be scrutinised by cabinet at their next meeting in July.

They say they did not believe the process had delivered a scheme that the committee was happy to endorse.