Rural Railway Stations: Step Free Access

Debate between Helen Morgan and Alison Bennett

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She raises a good point because none of the stations in my constituency is staffed on a regular basis, which adds an extra dimension for people struggling with their mobility or carrying heavy items.

The nearest alternative stations in Shropshire are Prees and Wrenbury. Both are request stops, where we have to stand on the edge of the platform and hail the train for it to stop. They are six and seven miles away respectively. To get from Whitchurch to Prees, which is southward—the way someone wants to go if they cannot access the platform—a person must travel over an hour by walking and taking the bus if they do not have a car. There is not an alternative option to get to Wrenbury. There is no parking at Prees station—just a widening in the grass verge by the road.

One Whitchurch resident told me that 10 years ago, sadly, they developed a neurological condition, which led to their retiring from their profession and needing to use a four-wheeled walking frame. They had to make frequent trips to the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery in London, but were not able to use Whitchurch station. Instead they had to drive over 17 miles along a poorly maintained road to Crewe to access the station there. It is absurd that we must have a car to access the railway. Public transport is for people who do not have cars. The nation and the Government are trying to move towards more sustainable forms of travel, but preventing large numbers of people from using the railway will not help achieve that objective.

Nearly two years after I first wrote to the Department for Transport, shortly after I was elected, and after countless letters, questions and meetings, Whitchurch station was finally announced as one of the stations where feasibility work for a step-free solution would be carried out under the Access for All scheme in May 2024, shortly before the election. As one would expect, the announcement gave rise to hope in the town that work would finally be completed, and yet what followed was a chaotic confusion of mixed messages.

Shortly after the general election the new Labour Government indicated that they would pause the projects while they sorted out the nation’s finances. Over a year later, a press release identical to the May 2024 one was published by the Government, stating that feasibility studies had been given the green light, further adding to the confusion about the timeline for the work. In August, Lord Hendy then confirmed that the initial feasibility studies had been completed, and that a decision would be made on which of the 50 stations would be put forward for work to start in the context of the spending review 2025, which took place in July.

Almost two months later, we are still waiting to learn the Department’s decision. The Government’s answers to pleas from Members across the House for approved stations to finally be released have made full use of the phrases “will be announced in due course” and “will be announced shortly”, but there has been nothing in the way of clarity, either in terms of the timetable or the stations to be included.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Wivelsfield station in my constituency was also promised money in January 2024 under the Access for All scheme, and to date no more information has been forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Conservatives did in 2024 was nothing more than pork barrel politics?

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think there is an element of pork barrel politics and of making undeliverable promises shortly before the election. That is not forgivable, because it has created an expectation among constituents that cannot be fulfilled.

As I was saying, the lack of clarity has added to the frustration of residents in places such as Whitchurch—especially in Whitchurch, because the plans for the lift are in place. It has been designed and Network Rail is keen to start work on the project, having designated it as a high priority for delivery in control period 7. All we need for step-free access at Whitchurch is a green light from the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s timeline for delivering step-free access to Whitchurch station, so I may share that with my constituents.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Debate between Helen Morgan and Alison Bennett

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has campaigned endlessly and consistently on that point and I entirely agree with him. I was concerned when both the Government and the Conservatives voted against his amendment in Committee. Perhaps in their winding-up speeches, they will explain the rationale to my constituents, who are faced with the reality of putting cling film over their toilet every time there is a big storm.

The current requirements, all of which allow consultation, have been inadequate in the example I have given, and indeed in many others. The local plan process requires local authorities to consult the water companies on infrastructure requirements. That should be a positive step; it is how future infrastructure should be determined, with plans made by both the local authority and the water company. However, many councils fail to develop local plans. Shropshire’s Conservative council has just had to withdraw an inadequate plan, having failed to satisfy the requirements of the planning inspectors, leaving the county open to a planning free-for-all in which it is unnecessary to consult water companies. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that in the review announced at the beginning of this week, water companies are added to the list of statutory consultees. I urge him also to tighten up the rules to prevent such a fiasco from emerging again, when after years of work and of taxpayers’ money being spent on a local plan, it is not fit for purpose and the whole process has to be started again. That is unacceptable for my residents, who are paying their council tax.

Another development 10 miles to the north has had similar issues, but in that case, in addition to concerns about the capacity of the pumping station and existing surface water flooding problems, Severn Trent has refused to adopt the drainage network, citing as its reason that the sewers were not built to the standard agreed under the section 104 arrangement in place. The developer, which I should say disputed that there were defects in the system, requested that Severn Trent return its section 104 bond, and it did. All of that was done without the residents’ knowledge. They only found out nearly three years later, following repeated complaints to the water company, which is tanking sewage away from the village on a weekly basis.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

On the section 106 moneys being returned to the developer, this week I had a meeting with Southern Water and then a meeting with a significant regional house builder in the south-east. A very similar situation was presented to me, wherein Southern Water had not actually managed to carry out the £2 million of improvements to the sewerage network that were required as part of the section 106 agreement. Does she agree that in such a situation it is incredibly hard for politicians and councils to make the case to residents that development is justified, when time and again they are let down by the development system?

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Residents are genuinely concerned about the impact on their village or town when the rules clearly are not allowing for additional infrastructure to be built. It is reasonable for them to expect that infrastructure to be built. We would see far less nimbyism if people had confidence that the infrastructure will be there when new houses are built.

The point I am trying to make is that the section 104 process is not fit for purpose. It is ridiculous to require a financial bond. The point of that bond is to deal with exactly the situation where the sewerage network has been inadequately built and needs to be adopted. The bond is there to ensure that the water company brings that sewerage system up to standard, so that it can be adopted.