From Gillian M

Sunday, 16 November 2025

No Michael Peel. Because it's not just about damage to buildings and loss of earnings, about road closures and toxic sludge. About vehicles being totalled and shops closing for good. It's about the risks floods pose in terms of people's safety. Having huge volumes of water surging into town will inevitably, at some point, result in loss of life. It's nothing short of miraculous that it hasn't happened already. That £82 million is a small price to pay if it helps to ensure visitor and townsfolk's safety.

From Jimmy P

Wednesday, 19 November 2025

I agree with the first poster and would prefer if attention was given to other ideas, with this flood scheme being the last resort.

This involves spending a huge amount of taxpayer money, on something which will ultimately hurt the town, both during construction (4 years) and afterwards - because nobody is interested in visiting a horrible new build wall concealing a river, with glass windows to peer through. Part of the charm of Hebden bridge is the access to water and the historic setting, with trees growing out of cracks in the walls, as if nature is about to take over. This project is far too drastic and ruins the character of the town.

Any gain from financial loss from flood damage, will instead be lost to tourism revenue. Bourton-on-the-Water (in the Cotswolds) floods regularly, but they know the value of the town is in the tourists visiting the picturesque stream, so they leave it.

Hebden Bridge has flooded for hundreds of years and a wall isn't going to stop that quantity of water. But when it fails, those flood alleviation folk will be long gone, they'll have moved on to another town to "fix".

From Paul Clarke

Friday, 21 November 2025

A simple question for Jimmy....have you ever stood watching water come in your living room...had a flooded car written off...sat for days in a damp house with no electricity...had to live in rented accommodation for months or dumped ruined furniture at the bottom of your street?

From Jimmy P

Sunday, 23 November 2025

Paul, I have not experienced that, although it is generally known which houses flood and that buying a house in the flood zone is considered risky, hence why they are generally cheaper.

I am not suggesting nothing is done, just that the current proposal is really extreme, and that I would prefer the focus was on trying to make the floods less extreme by delaying the water's arrival through the use of leaky dams etc. but on a much much larger scale.