Hebden Bridge Flood scheme
From Andy Marklew
Monday, 2 March 2026
Whilst watching the live stream of the Hebden Bridge Flood Scheme Planning Commitee, I couldn't help but notice that this much needed protection for our bonny town has been made into some kind of wedge issue by a notable few.
One contribution from a "local business owner" claimed that the town was already protected and that property protection would be enough. It transpires, after some basic research, that said business owner was not even based here during the floods of 2015 or even 2020. Despite that, he claimed to be speaking on behalf of the business community. I was glad to see this challenged robustly and corrected by our local mayor.
Praise be that our town will hopefully soon be better protected from the extremes of climate change.
On Boxing Day of 2015, we were helping my daughter Annie. At that time, she lived on one of the University streets. A cast of locals who had been more fortunate helped clean endless barrows of muck, excrement and filth out of her living room and cellar.
We comforted her neighbours, who crying with exhaustion, we went into town and helped in vain, businesses who were throwing their wares on makeshift piles of garbage when they should have been ready to welcome tourists.
We went to the flood hub at the Town Hall. People were upset, angry and wanted action. This shopkeeper was nowhere to be seen. It transpires his business was at that point high above the flood zone - lucky him.
I had to stop myself shouting at the screen, I won't name this shopkeeper but suffice to say I'm sure those that suffered through that awful time feel a hell of a lot different. So I was happy to see it pass through planning unanimously. At last, over 10 years since, we shouldn't have to wait any longer.
From Dan Debenham
Tuesday, 3 March 2026
Clarification Regarding the Recent Planning Committee Article on HebWeb.
I'm posting this purely to clarify points of record from the recent Planning Committee meeting, as accuracy matters for the town's archive and the FAS as it enters its funding phase.
1.
"All councillors agreed the scheme was well designed, robust and had years of engagement."
This is not what occurred. The Planning Committee members voted to approve the application. All councillor's present did not express agreement that the scheme was "well designed" or "robust," and in fact, serious concerns were articulated.
It is important to distinguish between the decision of the committee and the views of all councillors in attendance.
2.
Councillor Borrows being "challenged by the committee" on business disapproval.
There was no substantive challenge from committee members disputing the scale of business opposition. The objections submitted to planning stand at 132, compared with 44 comments in support — a 3:1 ratio. Similarly, signed statements from businesses in Hebden Bridge demonstrate near unanimity, with just three businesses in support.
This numerical context is relevant to understanding the level of concern expressed by residents and business owners and the falsity of any suggestion that Cllr Borrows could possibly be substantively challenged on this matter.
This post is not an attempt to re-litigate the planning decision. That vote has taken place.
It is simply to ensure that the historical account reflects what actually happened in the room, and that distinctions between committee decision and broader councillor or community opinion are preserved.
The scheme will soon proceed to funding, where many of the concerns expressed by the community will be heard with more utility than they could have been at planning (given the time constraints applied and the enthusiastic support of HRTC), and their applicability to cost benefit appraisals will be self evident. For that reason, early media (including HebWeb) suggestion of agreement and settlement of the issue may have undue consequences for our community, for whom the issue is very much ongoing.
Accurate records matter — especially on issues of this scale and consequence.
Daniel Debenham