Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Foster + Partners’ Ipswich bridge set to be scrapped

Foster orwell crossings crop

Councillors will next week vote on whether to scrap the main element of Foster + Partners’ controversial £139 million multi-bridge scheme in Ipswich

Suffolk County Council’s cabinet will be asked to halt work immediately on the Upper Orwell Crossings project, which Fosters won following a contentious RIBA contest, after costs ballooned by 40 per cent.

A report to the local authority called for the axing of Crossing A – a grand opening-bridge that would allow vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to travel over the river from Wherstead Road to Holywells Road while maintaining a navigable channel for boats.

Crossings B and C – much smaller bridges connecting Wet Dock Island to the east and west banks of the River Orwell – could still be built, but would rely on new funding.

The report, written for the cabinet by council assistant environment director Bryn Griffiths, said: ‘The council does not have enough capital resources to fill the funding gap between the current project cost estimate and the Department for Transport funding of £77.5 million.

‘Exploration of additional funding opportunities has not been successful, so the county council does not have enough funds for the existing project to proceed.’

It emerged in October that the cost of Fosters’ scheme had soared by up to 40 per cent. An independent report into projected costs, carried out for the council by engineer Jacobs, estimated a likely price of between £121.5 million and £139.8 million. The estimated cost in the Outline Business Case was £96.6 million.

While the Jacobs report did not consider procurement costs, the council said the process of appointing an architect had ‘incurred additional cost’ as had a number of design changes.

In a lengthy investigation published in April 2018, the AJ revealed details of the highly irregular RIBA competition won by Foster + Partners. The practice triumphed following a last-minute reduction in its fee – to just 0.8 per cent of the original budget for the project – which it was claimed should not have been allowed under the rules of the contest.

It also came to light that the RIBA played no role in the procurement process, despite lending its name to the competition; that highly sensitive fee data was leaked to participants both during and after the competition; and that Michael and Patty Hopkins – married business partners – were both on the jury and submitted near identical marks for the winning team. 

Back in 2016 – shortly after the contest was launched – Cezary Bednarski of Studio Bednarski described it as ’easily the most badly set up UK bridge design competition’. 

Foster + Partners, Suffolk County Council and the RIBA have been contacted for comment.


William Matthews Associates founder William Matthews said: ’As it evolved, the Upper Orwell competition became increasingly questionable for all the teams. How the RIBA saw fit to promote it is surprising.

’In the end Foster + Partners won with a very competitive fee proposal. Yet the actual designs we all submitted were not costed. The losing entries have all been published but details of the winning scheme are sparse. From what we have seen, it doesn’t look cheap so maybe it’s no surprise that the project should end this way.  

’This is sad for Ipswich. I won’t enter the debate as to whether the bridge is actually required, but considerable sums of money will have been wasted by the local authorities at a time when none is to spare. 

’There are lots of lessons to be learnt from this. Personally I feel this should start with the RIBA. A competition where fees represent 30 per cent of the judging score, and yet less than 1 per cent of the construction costs is not a good way of ensuring good design. Surely the RIBA should be calling this out as poor procurement and poor for the profession instead of promoting it?’


Readers' comments (3)

  • What a shambles! The usual suspects have once again failed to perform? How much have they wasted on “procurement”? Didn’t they know that the couple Hopkins were once part of Foster Associates, and would be biased in his favour? Where were the RIBA while all this was going on? Have the Suffolk County council wasted the £40m aledgedly wasted Boris and the garden bridge?

    Solution: Engage Bednarski and Team to design a bridge that could be built within the £77m budget? Is there a business case? Is it supported by the rate payers? Remember them!

    If it can be proved it will reduce traffic movement and therefore global warming I might be able to arrange some additional Municipal Green Bond finance. No doubt Cezary and I will discuss this when we meet?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MacKenzie Architects

    Was the original cost plan accurate?
    We never hear if that's the case; it seems to be often implied that the design is behind the new figure

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There's a smell of something, and it's not roses.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more