Firm is already there, so how could people object?
SURELY, as James Dawson and Son is already at Ruston Way (August 20, 21) nobody moving into new homes there would have any legal right to object to the firm's activities.
It seems to me that Dawson's is jumping to conclusions – what is the actual planning law position on this?
-

People complain about mixing housing with industrial developments, saying there is a lack of planning and traffic management – but this is precisely why they are mixing housing and industrial.
It enables people to live close to where they work, rather than living miles away and then commuting by car and causing traffic.
Our past policies of building sprawling suburbs and out-of-town developments, forcing everyone to commute, is what caused our traffic problems in the first place.
K. WHITWORTH Brant Road, Lincoln.
Moving to Ruston Way and then objecting to industry would be like saying you object to the noise from the pub next door when you bought the house there in the first place – or townies who complain about the sounds and smells when they move into rural locations.
I suggest Dawson's stands its ground.
It has a right to remain and its employees should not be made to suffer through either relocation or closure.
DAVID WALSH, Lincoln.
It seems to me that Dawson's is using this issue as a convenient excuse to close the factory and relocate all manufacturing to China.
Its days are numbered, anyway, as it is gradually being squeezed from all sides by new retail and accommodation developments.
I believe it is only holding out for a good price.
DAVE SMITH, Lincoln.
As a former worker at this factory, I feel it would be devastating for the workers who are still employed by the factory if events threatened it.
After all, there is little or no work in Lincoln, and this factory's closure would be the end to Lincoln's industry. Apart from small bits and pieces here and there, Lincoln has nothing left.
What's the point of building new housing that no-one can get a mortgage for? And putting more people out of work would only increase the number of people losing their homes.
What we really need is to increase employment.
This country is in a bad way but nobody seems to care.
Will it be that all the houses you build, plus those that have been repossessed, will just sit empty because of 'no work, no home'?
I wish someone would come along who can see what is going to happen before it's too late and work with the people of this country to build a more enterprising future.
I know that many of our young people with qualifications are either unemployed or standing in line for jobs in supermarkets – what a waste of the taxpayers' money educating them!
So please think before forcing this factory to relocate and putting its employees out of work.
J. SHAW, Lincoln.







Comments