THURROCK Council has given a detailed response to a string of questions posed by Thurrock Nub News in the wake of last week's abortive bid to gain planning permission for stage one of Stanford-le-Hope's new rail station.

At last Tuesday's (9 February) meeting of the council's transport overview and scrutiny committee, the outgoing assistant director for transport Anna Eastgate gave a first insight into plans to develop a car park and transport hub on the existing station car park site. This is stage two or a two-pronged project, with the first part the building of the new station on the other side of the road.

The presentation left several members of the committee in a quandary and raised more questions than it answered and an almost immediate repercussion was a decision on Thursday by the council's planning committee not to consider a planning application for the stage one station build until stage two is completed and also before them.

After analysing the stage two proposals, which were prepared after a 'pause and reflect' exercise by the council which paid planning consultants Mace Ltd £590,000 to review the scheme, Thurrock Nub News asked seven key questions if the council and we have now had them answered for residents to ponder and form their own viewpoints on.

Q. The image produced with the presentation appears to show car parking for around 100 car parking spaces which seems a lot less than that envisaged by doubling the size of the existing car park and opening it up to take more cars from the town centre Could you comment?

A. The existing car park currently has around 60 car park spaces. The proposed development will upgrade and increase the existing parking offer to create a transport hub that provides around 80 parking spaces with provision for short term parking. There will also be secured cycle storage for up to 84 bicycles, provision of up to 11 electrical pedal hire bikes, a bus stop with ample turning space for 15m buses, and a pedestrian crossing over London Road, with associated structures and landscaping. More details will follow in line with the phase two transport hub planning application.

Q. I also wondered what happened to Clarion House and all the engineering sites in the CGI images presented to council?

A. The scheme does not cover any of the neighbouring industrial estate, all works are entirely located within the existing station car park site and Daybreak Windows site. It has been designed with invaluable input from local residents and also key stakeholders including c2c, Network Rail and DP World London Gateway and it is being delivered on brownfield rather than on our greenbelt land.

Q. There is clearly a huge engineering effort to be undertaken which must surely include piling the length of the Hope to raise the levels?

A.The detail design must take into consideration flood modelling and the impact on Mucking Creek. The council is exploring a number of options including a retaining wall, stone revetments and gabion baskets. This level of detail will be addressed in the detailed design stage.

Q. After it was confirmed last night that the council has been discussing building houses on part of the Daybreak Windows/Stanford car park site is there any further information that you can give about the possibility/probability of that happening?

A. As confirmed by officers in the meeting and is as standard with any regeneration project, Thurrock Council will explore all possible options for any development and only move forward or rule out potential options after full due diligence exercises have been completed. Naturally housing would be one option to review. The most appropriate option will be progressed and it would be premature for the council to exclude any viable option.

Q. And the dual use of bus terminal and car park entrance and entry seems somewhat dangerous, as does the lack of a pedestrian crossing to the actual station? Could you enlighten us with more detail?

A. We are undertaking a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) audit to ensure that residents are able to safely move between the two sites. Public safety is the council's most important priority. This arrangement is an improvement in safety terms on the previous design which had the bus turnaround on the station forecourt area where pedestrians would still be moving across London road to the car park. The proposed arrangements improve safety by creating additional space, provision of an identified pathway to guide pedestrians crossing London Road.

Q. It certainly doesn't look like the greatest piece of visualisation for a project which must be disappointing as you paid £590,000 for it.

A. This is misleading. The council has not paid £590,000 for drawings.

Q. Ms Eastgate was astonishingly sketchy about the site and could or wouldn't talk about cost? Why?

A. Officers were very clear. The project is currently within the £19.6 million budget and the project team are working within that budget envelope. Further figures will only be available when the project has gone to tender. Only once the market has been tested and tenders returned will the council know what the anticipated build costs of this development will be.

Nub News editor Neil Speight says: "I am grateful for the detail in the answers. I am not sure they answer all the relevant questions fully but at least we are seeing information about this project brought into the public domain rather than bandied about in secret.

"It is particularly interesting that far from the town parking panacea that has been promised, the site will have just 80 car parking spaces. The CGI visual put before councillors had more than 100, but the aerial plan has 70 so you have to wonder what sort of accuracy is being applied to this project at this point.

"At least the figure is now out there and what it does show is that the council has bought a lot more land than it needs for its transport hub and parking, so it seems possible there may at some point be houses on the site which is something that I don't think anyone local saw coming.

"The satellite photograph with this article shows far more land that the council now has for the site than the council has used in its illustrative images.

"I am sure there will be many more stages and developments on this issue and hopefully as it progresses local residents will be kept in the picture.

"What is also interesting as the council continues to retrospectively cost and budget this project is that Ms Eastgate produced drawings in her presentation produced by designers Aecom.

"Following up that name in the 'accounts paid' files of the council makes interesting reading.

On 1 July last year the council paid Aecom Infrastructure & Environment Ltd £301,233.61.

Followed up by another £87,548.43 in October, £280,868.63 in November and £93,133.33 on 1 December. They also £85,580.26 last month. That's a total of more than £847,500. It would seem likely that some of this is for the Stanford station work but we have asked the question!

"Certainly the answer we received about the drawings that were not produced by Mace Ltd prompts yet another question. Just what have they done for their £590,000?

"Aecom are described as 'an infrastructure firm partnering with clients to solve the world's most complex challenges and build legacies for generations to come'. You wouldn't have thought building a station in Stanford-le-Hope was one of the world's most complex challenges but perhaps it was."