ACCORDING to Liberal Democrat election literature, there are further delays and cutbacks with the proposed new train station at Chapelford.

Most importantly, it says there is now a £5 million shortfall in the funding of the scheme – and that a bid for this money is being made to the Government’s New Stations Fund.

How ironic.

This is the very source which rejected the initial application some five years ago.

Back then the bid failed in the first round of the competition for funding – presumably because its case was weakened by the close proximity of Sankey station.

Is there any reason to think a new bid will fare any better?

The borough council still claims on its website that 86 per cent of people are in favour of the station.

But that was in response to a 2013 consultation paper, when the total cost was estimated at £9 million and the borough council contribution was £500,000.

The respective figures are now £18 million and £4.3 million.

I wonder what percentage would still be in favour?

We are told not to worry because the council will use its capital fund, as if this can somehow ‘magic’ the money away.

It does of course only make matters worse, as capital spending is financed from loan and – at current PWLB interest rates – the £4.3 million becomes £5.5 million.

The only substantive case for the new station rests with the additional car parking it can provide.

Sankey station can accommodate the 24 disability spaces required, as well as a generous pick up/put down area, but not a lot more.

So why not go-ahead with the car park at Chapelford – but not the station?

A well-lit attractive path runs alongside the railway between the two sites.

It is traffic-free apart from residents’ cars in Belmont Close cul-de-sac. The distance (from San Diego Drive to the point where the path emerges in Station Road opposite the entrance to the east- bound platform at Sankey Station) is just 800 yards.

On the London tube, the distance between the Circle and District lines at Bank/Monument station is also 800 yards.

It does seem perverse that it is considered acceptable to walk that distance through murky, unpleasant tunnels in London – but out-of-the-question to expect people to do so along a pleasant path in Warrington – and £18 million needs to be spent to avoid them having to do so.

CHRIS HAGGETT

Penketh