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

From Andy Marklew

Thursday, 5 March 2026

The above article as linked is accurate as I watched and the meeting in full (a full rewatch can verify this). According to local social media, the previous poster is part of the so called "Hebden Action Group". A group which sole aim seems to have been to stop the flood scheme, an objective it thankfully failed in doing. It bears repeating that he, as others on that group do not speak for the wider community. A look at their page shows a mix of some locals, and those from local Reform Party forums, (The Reform representative on the committee agreed to pass the scheme.)

In a parish of around 10,000, only 140 were inclined to oppose the scheme with 45 in support. Around half were about the site compound and an FOI submitted has shown that more than half were from outside of the Town Council red line boundary. In short, far more locals are ambivalent or not compelled to respond. A recent change of use for a local pub in Old Town gained far more objections, around 400 with only 2 supporting. This shows the real disparity in the issues locals really care about oppose or support, 

It looks like most of the main spokespeople of that group neither lived here or were running business when serious flooding has occurred. 

I imagine most would find this troubling and could be interpreted as a mismatch between self interest and the realities of those who lost everything that live in the flood zone.

I would, given the cross-party approval of the scheme, be more inclined to take the word of those who have positively engaged with the nearly 10 year process of finally realising a flood scheme for our town.

Replaying versions of how the planning meeting went is unhelpful vs engaging positively with the wider community and Environment Agency. The scheme is thankfully going ahead. We should all make the best of it. However we feel.

From Daniel Debenham

Saturday, 7 March 2026

 "The above article as linked is accurate as I watched and the meeting in full (a full rewatch can verify this)."

I attended the meeting, and indeed a rewatch can verify the corrections I have made- as can the linked videos below.

Aside from that, you have made numerous errors in your response, which I will attend to.  

"According to local social media, the previous poster is part of the so called "Hebden Action Group". 

This is incorrect. I have supported that group, along with many hundreds of engaged community members, because along with the majority of the community, I agree with its aims, which are no more radical than to seek transparency and a community voice in a project of such magnitude. 

"A group which sole aim seems to have been to stop the flood scheme, an objective it thankfully failed in doing."

This is also factually inaccurate. At no point has the Hebden Action Group aimed to stop the scheme. They lead with open affirmation that a scheme is necessary, but that the scheme submitted to planning contains serious oversights for the safety and wellbeing of the community, with regard to economic impact, mental health, heritage, and indeed informed and effective flood alleviation itself. Those failings are documented, not theoretical. 

"It bears repeating that he, as others on that group do not speak for the wider community. A look at their page shows a mix of some locals, and those from local Reform Party forums, (The Reform representative on the committee agreed to pass the scheme.)"

Again if you would take issue with my post, please do so with my post, not via groups that had nothing to do with my post, or ugly and transparent allusions to Reform.  I speak on behalf of The Calder Valley Trade & Business Alliance. Not Hebden Action. Though common sense does necessitate commonality of view between us. 

"It looks like most of the main spokespeople of that group neither lived here or were running business when serious flooding has occurred."

I was here, I was flooded, I've lived here all my life, served in the Fire Service in both Hebden and Mytholmroyd and had all the familiarity with the effects of flooding required to speak on the matter.
Once again, it is inappropriate to attempt to disregard my comments on the basis of a group which only you seem to be fixated on. A group who have only sought a community voice regardless. 

"I imagine most would find this troubling and could be interpreted as a mismatch between self interest and the realities of those who lost everything that live in the flood zone."

I am not acting in self interest. I am acting in support of the businesses. Ie the 2-3% of the community who are being forced to carry 100% of the economic impact, amounting to tens of millions of potential losses in the next four years alone. I'm claiming only that these people should be compensated, and that the local economy for which they are the beating heart, is safeguarded. Presently this is not the case. 

"I would, given the cross-party approval of the scheme, be more inclined to take the word of those who have positively engaged with the nearly 10 year process of finally realising a flood scheme for our town."

The Environment Agency "positively engaged" with only a small group of supporters of the scheme. I have statements from 140+ businesses in the flood zone, none of whom were consulted in any meaningful way. 
Not one town-wide flyer, costing just £300 from the over five million spent already. Do you believe that constitutes public consultation? And if not, please recognise that public consultation is a policy requirement of the scheme. 

The "Hebden Bridge Business Forum" (burdened by strong Labour influence) was the only "stakeholder" consulted on the matter on behalf of businesses. Unfortunately, that group does not speak for businesses in town who are almost unanimously opposed. Indeed, the vast majority of the business forum are also against the scheme as it stands, alongside the vast majority of the community and the Hebden Action group who you wrongly portray as radical in some way, rather than representative of the dominant view.

It is true that the "Business Forum" decided to support the scheme, despite their members not doing. Which is just one of many problems with what served as a "consultation" process. 

"Replaying versions of how the planning meeting went is unhelpful vs engaging positively with the wider community and Environment Agency. The scheme is thankfully going ahead. We should all make the best of it. However we feel."

I'm unsure why you believe the scheme is going ahead? Planning approval grants legality for the scheme to seek funding approval. Fortunately, that is the stage at which policy standards must be demonstrated as met, cost-benefit ratios must be proven and, vitally, evidenced claims may not simply be passed over by the mayor and members of a town council who have demonstrated predetermination and bias throughout. Those facts will now be audited appropriately. Which in combination with a unified effort with other communities around the country who are now suffering the failed promises we are presently being offered, we may well expect a more appropriate standard of due diligence moving forward. 

Finally, to correct another misrepresentation from your first post:

"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."

Please see the link below to more closely assess the "robustness" of the mayors challenge. What Cllr Borrows was challenged on by the mayor was his assertion that no adequate compensation scheme existed. An assertion largely confirmed by the Environment Agency themselves later in the same meeting, which was a little embarrassing for our council, along with Cllr Butterick as its most senior representative. 

Furthermore, as diligent attention upon the meeting would have revealed, said "business owner" is in fact a local councillor, Cllr Borrows. As is demonstrated by the fact he was even allowed to speak (with only five minutes being granted to all public opposition separately), which he was able to do, until being interrupted, smeared and misrepresented by the Mayor. 

I'm sure you'll concede, that despite Cllr Borrows living here his whole life and bearing witness to the floods, whether he did or he didn't has no bearing on his role in speaking for his constituents. A voice which should not be silenced on the basis of superficial assessments of where his personal business happened to be located in a given period. Cllr Borrows was also speaking on behalf of 140 business, located in the flood zone, who had told him they were against the scheme and requested he act. 70 of whom signed statements to share their data publicly. Many of the remainder refused to speak publicly due to documented threats of boycott by misinformed members of the public who, as yet, like yourself, haven't made themselves aware of the most pertinent fact:

The mayor and members of the town council have, either knowingly or by carelessness, repeatedly perpetuated falsehoods and misinformation which has led to significant polarisation and community confusion with regard to the facts of the flood alleviation scheme.