Order. I will call Tom Morrison to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in these 30-minute debates, there will unfortunately not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
That this House has considered the future of Cheadle train station.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the Minister for being here to address my concerns and those of my constituents directly. Cheadle is a thriving and growing town in Greater Manchester with 23,000 residents. It is a vibrant place packed with great restaurants and a fantastic community culture, and it has the most beautiful green spaces in the region. Yet it has been missing a railway station for over half a century.
The original station opened 1 February 1866. It had two platforms and was located just north of Cheadle High Street. It connected Cheadle to Warrington, Stockport and Liverpool, opening up new opportunities for almost a century. At the time, the line was crucial for transporting coal between Yorkshire and the port of Liverpool, as it avoided central Manchester. The route was one of the busiest double-track lines in the country for goods services. Sadly, passenger services were withdrawn in November 1964, and Cheadle has not had a passenger rail service since.
Today, Cheadle is suffering from chronic congestion. Everyone in the area will know what I mean when I talk about the Manchester Road crawl. Between 8 am and 9am, and then between 3 pm and 6 pm, the roads between Cheadle and Manchester stand at a halt as hundreds upon hundreds of cars, buses, lorries and other vehicles try to use the route between the two areas. This happens every day of the week and has become a source of real angst for my constituents.
People are rightly encouraged to take the bus for public transport, but it takes an hour to get from Cheadle to Manchester Piccadilly, and from Cheadle to Stockport town centre, whereas it would take just 18 minutes and seven minutes respectively by train. It is clear that Cheadle train station is the antidote. The benefits of restoring Cheadle’s rail connection would be boundless, breathing extra life into the high street, connecting residents with work and family, reducing congestion and supporting clean growth, while opening up the region for my constituents.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Like him, we lost our train station many moons ago—back at a time when I had hair, which was a long time ago. We have watched the decline of public transport, and if we get rid of stations, it means a slow decline, and can easily end up with the removal of lines. While the profit margin is, and should be, a material consideration, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the obligation to provide a service is equally important?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Yes, the point is that this is about people. Given the rate I am losing my hair, I hope we get the train station while I have more hair than him.
Residents overwhelmingly support the new station, with 87% of people responding positively to the consultation, which was managed by Cheadle Civic Society and the Cheadle Village Partnership—two organisations that are run by local community activists who have the village at their heart. The proposal was approved for planning in 2023, but no work on site has been done. My constituents write to me almost every day to ask where the station is and why it has not been built yet.
Make no mistake: Cheadle rail station is a fully developed, shovel-ready proposal, and there is absolutely no reason it should have stalled like this. The business case was developed and approved, the land negotiations were progressed and agreed, the timetable modelling and independent analysis were all done, and never was there any sign that there could be a problem. It was a truly collaborative effort. Stockport council, Transport for Greater Manchester, Northern and Network Rail have all worked together to make Cheadle rail station a reality. Most importantly, the community stood up and pulled together to make it happen. This is truly the people’s project.
The plans have support from the leader of Stockport council, councillors and MPs across the borough, the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce, numerous local businesses, and the Greater Manchester combined authority, which included the station in the 2025 Greater Manchester strategy. The project even has the support of the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The station is designed to be inclusive, which will be especially welcome news to train station accessibility campaigner Nathaniel Yates, who works so hard to make sure that all Greater Manchester rail stations have disabled access.
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a compelling case for the people of Cheadle to get the railway station they deserve. He mentioned Nathaniel Yates, who is a phenomenal campaigner in our region for accessibility at railway stations, and I visited Bredbury station and Romiley station with him. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that when we eventually do get Cheadle station, it should be accessible, so that everybody can access it and people get the rail service they deserve.
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. The one word we can use to describe Nathaniel Yates is “legend”. He has put accessibility at train stations at the very top of the agenda in Greater Manchester, and we should all follow his lead on this.
Transport for Greater Manchester says that the station would deliver significant benefits, including fast, reliable and accessible connections between Cheadle, Stockport and Manchester, meaning greater opportunities and less car dependency. Additionally, the increase in journeys would improve the commercial sustainability of the mid-Cheshire line. There would be an estimated demand for 91,000 new passenger journeys a year by the late 2020s, and approximately £400,000 per year in additional revenue.
Sadly, the project has been stalled for some time, and we await a rail industry governance decision on the future of the project. There have been concerns about timetable changes on the mid-Cheshire line, but independent modelling and an industry review show that only minor adjustments are required, with an overall neutral impact on network performance. Any interim adjustments would be temporary and manageable. Network Rail has concerns about the fragility of the Stockport-Manchester corridor, but existing modelling clearly shows that the impact is manageable. That should not outweigh the case for investing in growth, connectivity and opportunity.
It is clear that Cheadle rail station would be more than viable. The Government know this and are dragging their feet—it simply does not make sense. The station makes sense politically, economically, environmentally and socially. The delays in decision making are not only putting the future of the station at risk but undermining the confidence of the public—a public who not only backed the rail station but delivered the consultation. They lobbied politicians and raised a huge campaign in favour of the plans. They are the people who deserve this, and any decision to the contrary, especially after walking them up that hill, would be unforgivable.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate, and everyone else, including the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their helpful interventions that stressed the fundamental importance of rail connectivity to communities in the north-west of England.
Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I want to say that I have noted the hon. Member for Cheadle’s point about the lack of response to his correspondence with the Rail Minister and the Department for Transport, and I will make sure that his correspondence receives a full response as quickly as possible.
I am grateful for the impassioned case the hon. Gentleman made for building the new station. He outlined how railways serve as a catalyst for economic growth, social connections and interconnectedness between different communities. A powerful case has been put forward on behalf of the people of Cheadle.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing the debate and pay tribute to him for the strong case he made on behalf of his residents in Cheadle. If I was in his position, I would make broadly the same arguments. However, I am the Member of Parliament for Mid Cheshire, and I have to speak for my constituents, and unfortunately there is no way to deliver a station at Cheadle that does not have a detrimental effect on the mid-Cheshire line and add to the journey time from Northwich, which is already an hour.
Transport for Greater Manchester’s modelling proposed dropping the services from Plumley, Ashley and Mobberley down to every two hours, rather than every hour, which would effectively kill rail travel to those communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the proposal is to go forward, we need to look seriously at either a half-hourly service from Northwich or wider infrastructure improvements, so that we can improve journey times for the whole line?
My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the matters that I will turn to shortly, including connectivity and capacity considerations for other parts of the north-west rail network. He is absolutely right that the Department for Transport has an obligation to ensure that these questions are considered in the round, and that communities are not disadvantaged. I will turn to that point in more detail in a moment.
The Government know and understand how vital good, reliable and frequent rail services are to local communities, particularly those in the north of England, which have seen years of chronic under-investment. The Government recognise the potential benefits of the proposed new station at Cheadle for the local community, including improved access to jobs, education, healthcare and economic growth, alongside the forecasted positive revenue that would help to support the railway’s financial sustainability.
In determining whether a new station is feasible, a number of considerations must be made, and relevant stakeholders must be included in the decision-making process. Network Rail, as the owner of the rail infrastructure, is responsible for assessing whether additional train stops could be accommodated, taking into account operational constraints on the network. The Department for Transport is responsible for understanding the cost to the taxpayer of additional stops and services.
Stockport council, which received funding for the planning and construction of a new station at Cheadle in 2022, is responsible for the project’s delivery, and Cheadle has been included in the Stockport local regeneration fund since September 2025. The funding landscape for local authorities has evolved, with the town deal, the levelling-up fund and the pathfinder pilots now combined into one streamlined, flexible funding stream called the local regeneration fund. This change aims to cut down on bureaucracy, and gives local authorities much more freedom to adapt schemes in response to local needs, so that they no longer require central Government approval for project adjustments. As a result, decision making is now much more devolved, empowering local authorities to act swiftly and responsibly on local priorities.
20 of 22 shown
The towns fund programme has already had to extend the funding deadline to March 2027 because of the delays. Additionally, costs are increasing with inflation every day, and uncertainty is building for partners and contractors. Constituents write to me week in, week out, without fail, to inquire about the progress of the station, and each week I am unable to update them further. This cannot go on.
The people of Cheadle need clear direction from the Government. Responsibility for the delay lies squarely with the Department for Transport, which has the mandate to instruct Northern to serve the new station—powers that neither Stockport council nor Transport for Greater Manchester have. The Department must confirm that the required timetable change can proceed, outline a firm pathway for construction, and constructively engage with Network Rail and Northern Rail to move the project forward.
Since this bump in the road arose, I and the Cheadle towns fund board have taken numerous steps to engage with the Department for Transport directly. I wrote to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, in December and urged him to provide clarity, and I am still awaiting a response. Stockport council and the Cheadle towns fund board have also written to the Minister, and are awaiting a response.
I say again that Cheadle train station is fully funded, planned and widely supported, and would only enhance Cheadle further, drastically improving residents’ lives, boosting growth in the economy, tackling regional inequality and increasing sustainable transport. The Government simply need to get their act together and sign it off. With Government backing, the station would quickly become a reality, regenerating the village centre, increasing connectivity and driving economic resilience. Very few infrastructure projects reach this stage with such strong backing and unified support.
This is also a prime opportunity for the Government to walk the walk and combat the regional inequalities that they claim to prioritise. The Institute for Public Policy Research argues that the UK’s economic success relies on northern growth, and I could not agree more. Improving people’s day-to-day quality of life directly creates the growth that this country so desperately needs. Treasury officials have previously described the north as an “untapped gold reserve”, and I know that to be true, but the Government must follow that up with action.
Let me highlight the impact of regional inequalities on young people in my constituency. While facing massive challenges, they are now doubly burdened with record unemployment and fewer opportunities for starting out in life. The young people of Cheadle need a good public transport system to help them to access education and jobs. This is not a “nice to have”; they need it.
Does the Minister want Cheadle to thrive and invest in the long term? Do the Government want to leave a legacy that will improve the lives of constituents in Cheadle? Do the Government really mean it when they say they will support clean growth and investment in public transport? Will they get on the train headed towards a more equitable and prosperous country? Will the Minister confirm that the Department will provide the necessary direction so that Cheadle train station can move into delivery without further delay?
I would like to leave a picture in everyone’s minds—a vision for Cheadle. I envision a stronger, more resilient and connected Cheadle in just a few years’ time: a Cheadle where elderly residents such as Paul can easily get the train to their doctor’s appointment; a Cheadle where the high street is thriving even more, and where businesses are fighting to open; a Cheadle where Elise, a teenager at college, can be independent and travel quickly to college without buying a car; and a Cheadle where all residents can easily travel to Hazel Grove and Stockport within minutes, but also to Manchester city centre, Greater Manchester and beyond far more easily than ever before.
The delays to the project have unfortunately occurred due to several concerns around timetable feasibility and the potential effects on performance. The proposed location with planning permission is on a single-track section of the rail network, which leads on to the congested corridor between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, limiting service options and presenting complex operational challenges. While services run along the mid-Cheshire line through Cheadle, the capacity of the line between Stockport and Altrincham is constrained by the single-track stretches. Parts of the mid-Cheshire line are also used by freight services, which will need to be considered when planning for any additional stops.
The interconnected nature of the rail network means that this proposal cannot be considered in isolation; it would affect the nationally significant Stockport-Piccadilly section of the west coast main line. An additional stop on the single-track section risks delays for all services at Edgeley junction No. 2, as trains approach central Manchester and interact with this critical section of the west coast main line. That could have serious knock-on impact on services across the network. The proposed timetable would also require the re-timing of long-distance passenger and freight services.
The Rail North partnership board is the decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine trains, and is one part of the process that needs to be take place to enable the service change. It is now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be accommodated. Officials are developing a paper for consideration by the Rail North partnership board at its next meeting on 15 April. We need to ensure that those who are potentially impacted by such a change are given the opportunity to voice their concerns through meaningful consultation. We therefore encourage Stockport council and Transport for Greater Manchester to continue to engage with stakeholders and industry about the concerns raised and the areas potentially impacted by proposals.
This has been an opportunity to reflect on the case for a new station at Cheadle. Transport connections underpin the core missions of this Government: to kickstart economic growth, unlock housing delivery and break down barriers to opportunity to transform lives. After years of poor performance, it is more important than ever that passengers regain confidence in the rail services they rely on and that the risk to punctuality is fully understood and mitigated as far as possible. However, any timetable changes must be carefully considered to balance local benefits against wider network impacts.
I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and other Members for their contributions. I commit to continuing the conversation with him on a key issue for him and his constituents, as he continues to fight for improved transport connections across his constituency.