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.

From Andy M

Monday, 1 December 2025

The Wavy Steps will still be accessible, which is where most visitors engage with the river, since the barriers there are intended to be reactive.

From Gillian M

Wednesday, 3 December 2025

The uproar regarding changes to the Wavy Steps is ironic, given that when they were installed back in the noughties there was strong opposition to them. They were seen as too modern and not in keeping with the surrounds. Yet somehow they've become a focal point of the town, attracting children and visitors (and the weekend rowdy drinkers - but that's for another post maybe.)

From Andy M

Wednesday, 10 December 2025

I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by the developing narrative around opposition to the flood alleviation scheme. I can understand the objections and fears about its potential impacts but it seems to come  wrapped-up a series of posts, here and on the town Facebook pages, which partly reimagine the town;  its history, geography  and the character of its inhabitants.

So in this narrative Hebden was born out of people fleeing persecution and striving for freedom from , variously, Saxons, Romans, Normans etc   - something  for which I can find no reference to whatsoever  - and has a '1500-year tradition of mutual aid, resistance, and local autonomy'. This seems at odds with recorded history given that after the Norman conquest the area became for a long time part of a nobleman's deer park, so not hardly a centre of resistance for sticking it to the man. 

We're also told that our admittedly damp   - but actually pretty temperate valley - is a harsh unforgiving environment which  has also stamped its character on an uncompromising local breed of rebellious, no-nonsense  gritty etc etc folk who presumably just got on and coped with their homes being flooded from time to time - although most very sensibly lived further up the hillside.

And whilst the author says the debate is not about who you are this, and other similar posts , have inferred it is partly about gritty locals and less principled offcumden latecomers. The town ceased being an industrial centre decades ago but it's no less real for being a commuter and visitor centre - or its occupants any less principled.

Alongside this is the  apparent  mantra  that the main cause of flooding is not primarily from the river but more down to  surface flooding due mostly to local authority and utilities companies neglect of drainage infrastructure. We do indeed get surface water flooding, and this may well be exacerbated to an extent by poor maintenance, but its not that simple. The key feature affecting flood risk in this valley is the acute storm hydrograph curve produced by  heavy rain events, a large boggy upland area, steep valley sides and a narrow valley causing water to arrive all too quickly in the river channel itself. (so improving field and urban drainage could just  as easily exacerbate that curve). Added to that, due to climate change,  we are experiencing more frequent and more extreme weather events so we need flood prevention measures to slow the  progress of that water reaching the river but also dealing with it once it gets there.

I can understand the concerns of the traders (and the Environment Agency and Council should, of course be accountable and ensure impacts are kept as minimal as possible), but I'm uneasy with this accompanying narrative. Reimagining the town's history is fairly harmless but denying the significance of the flood risk from the river - whilst not the greatest lie ever told (sic)  - is very misleading. 

From Paul Clarke

Monday, 15 December 2025

Jimmy, apologies for not replying sooner but as I suspected your approach to what needs to be done was not based on bitter personal experience.

Like most other flood victims I've been waiting a decade now for something serious to be done to alleviate the problem.  As soon as the plans came out a minority of local nimbys are straight in with objections. Like with Jimmy it did lead me to wonder how many of the nimbys have actually experienced flooding first hand? 

We've had a few weird history lessons about the hardy settlers who founded our town who just put up with flooding. Well, since then mankind has invented technology to help alleviate flooding so let's use that where appropriate.  I think our founding fathers would have welcomed flood technology if had been available back then. 

I think Jimmy's suggestion that we use leaky dams has merit as part of a broader solution, but they can only part of much bigger solution offered by the current proposals.

Ironically the solution for the street I live on is one of the less complex ones, but we have to wait to have it done while the usual suspects moan about the plan.                        

I'm going to say it - if it requires part of the park to be used to store plant so be it.  I hope we can avoid that but local dog walkers will hardly be short of nearby green spaces to let their pooches run free.   

From Jimmy P

Thursday, 1 January 2026

You are correct - I have not experienced flooding first hand. But I wonder is anxiety around a possible flooding event helping to push a very extreme scheme into place and not respecting the historic setting at all.

My reasons are mostly aesthetic - I think the scheme is butt ugly. The walls are very tall and clad in a thin veneer of stone. The trees along the river will be removed. The little panes of glass to see the river are a gimmick. The river will be hard to see. That part of the town, the nicest part will be ruined.

So I will never support a scheme that ruins a historic centre for thousands of people. It's a last resort solution, not a first resort.

From Andy M

Tuesday, 6 January 2026

I'm struggling to see how the proposed walls in zones C and D are so bad - given that the artist's impressions are accurate. The Wavy Steps, bridge  and riverside path (the main areas where people interact with the river) are all still accessible unless the river is in flood, and you'll still be able to see the river from Old Gate but that's not a major draw. 

Benches placed  in front of the walls 9and/or incorporate seating into their design as has been done very successfully at West Kirby seafront), plus interpretation/information on the purpose of the defences  and the history of flooding could actually enhance the visitor experience.

From Paul Clarke

Thursday, 15 January 2026

Jimmy, my point about being directly impacted by flooding is you don't have that knot in your stomach when there is heavy rain or - more recently - heavy snow. 

And I'm really glad you don't because it is a horrible feeling.

Being flooded is why a decade later I'm really keen to finally get this scheme off the ground.

I'm not afraid to say that practicality trumps aesthetics all day long.  I want a scheme that will alleviate flooding and works.

If you can't get a view of the river from the wavy steps (which also had the local nimbys up in arms at the time) then you can walk a few feet to your right to stand on Packhorse Bridge which affords a lovely view.