Makeshift car park set up by Dyson in Malmesbury

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: Cones put up to combat parking problems around the Dyson HQ Cones put up to combat parking problems around the Dyson HQ

Design and technology giant, Dyson, has set up a temporary car park for 200 cars and put out cones on roadsides to combat parking problems in response to complaints from the community.

The firm, which announced last month its hopes to expand in Malmesbury and create hundreds of jobs over the next year, reacted to a backlash from frustrated residents over dangerous parking on roadsides near to the factory site.

Martyn Snell, who is a Malmesbury town councillor, spoke out at a meeting between the council and Dyson representatives about the prob- lem, and is delighted to see that the appeal have been listened to.

“They carried out their promise,” he said.

“We had all those problems but I’ve had no complaints about the situation since.

“I don’t think they really realised the problem.

“We put it in the papers to tell people what was going on and I don’t think we can do much more; they have listened.”

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:12pm Wed 19 Feb 14

kimcrawley says...

This situation shows us all why we have laws preventing unscrupulous developers building wherever they want.
Please consider again the scenario whereby Dyson claims he is going to employ more R and D staff than British Aerospace - (3000).
Where will they come from, where will they live and where will they park?
This story isn't news it's just another press release from Dyson dressed up with an obliging comment from a councillor. This is part of the process to gain approval for his proposed development of green belt land.
We need to protect the green belt, once built upon it is lost forever. Why they need to build on the current site is becoming more and more nebulous with time. Dyson should remember he laid off hundreds of local people to reduce cost and increase his profit. Given the amount of available sites within a 20 mile radius I have still not heard a credible reason for the new development. We are now left with the vague promise of 'hundreds of jobs in the future', perhaps the obliging councillor and Dyson's PR department could explain how many scientists/engineers from Malmesbury they intend to employ.
The only beneficiary of this proposal will be Dyson, once he's relocated his current empire to another site - because of 'costs' he will have a brownfield site ripe for residential development, worth a lot more than it is now.
This whole fiasco is about money nothing else, not for local jobs or community benefits just money for Dyson. The green belt should remain protected so that it is still there when Dyson has long gone.
This situation shows us all why we have laws preventing unscrupulous developers building wherever they want. Please consider again the scenario whereby Dyson claims he is going to employ more R and D staff than British Aerospace - (3000). Where will they come from, where will they live and where will they park? This story isn't news it's just another press release from Dyson dressed up with an obliging comment from a councillor. This is part of the process to gain approval for his proposed development of green belt land. We need to protect the green belt, once built upon it is lost forever. Why they need to build on the current site is becoming more and more nebulous with time. Dyson should remember he laid off hundreds of local people to reduce cost and increase his profit. Given the amount of available sites within a 20 mile radius I have still not heard a credible reason for the new development. We are now left with the vague promise of 'hundreds of jobs in the future', perhaps the obliging councillor and Dyson's PR department could explain how many scientists/engineers from Malmesbury they intend to employ. The only beneficiary of this proposal will be Dyson, once he's relocated his current empire to another site - because of 'costs' he will have a brownfield site ripe for residential development, worth a lot more than it is now. This whole fiasco is about money nothing else, not for local jobs or community benefits just money for Dyson. The green belt should remain protected so that it is still there when Dyson has long gone. kimcrawley
  • Score: -3

2:45pm Wed 19 Feb 14

wiltshireborne says...

kimcrawley wrote:
This situation shows us all why we have laws preventing unscrupulous developers building wherever they want.
Please consider again the scenario whereby Dyson claims he is going to employ more R and D staff than British Aerospace - (3000).
Where will they come from, where will they live and where will they park?
This story isn't news it's just another press release from Dyson dressed up with an obliging comment from a councillor. This is part of the process to gain approval for his proposed development of green belt land.
We need to protect the green belt, once built upon it is lost forever. Why they need to build on the current site is becoming more and more nebulous with time. Dyson should remember he laid off hundreds of local people to reduce cost and increase his profit. Given the amount of available sites within a 20 mile radius I have still not heard a credible reason for the new development. We are now left with the vague promise of 'hundreds of jobs in the future', perhaps the obliging councillor and Dyson's PR department could explain how many scientists/engineers from Malmesbury they intend to employ.
The only beneficiary of this proposal will be Dyson, once he's relocated his current empire to another site - because of 'costs' he will have a brownfield site ripe for residential development, worth a lot more than it is now.
This whole fiasco is about money nothing else, not for local jobs or community benefits just money for Dyson. The green belt should remain protected so that it is still there when Dyson has long gone.
Kimcrawley - I disagree. This process is more like what happened when an expansion was proposed last time; "Oh, you won't let me expand, well I'll move assembly to Malaysia then." Which is possible what was wanted really anyway.
This is more likely Dyson (the business not necessarily the person) controlling the situation to make a move elsewhere less problematic.
Basically make Dyson look like the victim and that moving is their only option.
They outgrew the old lighting factory years ago and the design facilities are insufficient and unsuitable.
I've never worked in such a un-inspirational place and it always baffled me that they'd place their design team in such a bland environment.
[quote][p][bold]kimcrawley[/bold] wrote: This situation shows us all why we have laws preventing unscrupulous developers building wherever they want. Please consider again the scenario whereby Dyson claims he is going to employ more R and D staff than British Aerospace - (3000). Where will they come from, where will they live and where will they park? This story isn't news it's just another press release from Dyson dressed up with an obliging comment from a councillor. This is part of the process to gain approval for his proposed development of green belt land. We need to protect the green belt, once built upon it is lost forever. Why they need to build on the current site is becoming more and more nebulous with time. Dyson should remember he laid off hundreds of local people to reduce cost and increase his profit. Given the amount of available sites within a 20 mile radius I have still not heard a credible reason for the new development. We are now left with the vague promise of 'hundreds of jobs in the future', perhaps the obliging councillor and Dyson's PR department could explain how many scientists/engineers from Malmesbury they intend to employ. The only beneficiary of this proposal will be Dyson, once he's relocated his current empire to another site - because of 'costs' he will have a brownfield site ripe for residential development, worth a lot more than it is now. This whole fiasco is about money nothing else, not for local jobs or community benefits just money for Dyson. The green belt should remain protected so that it is still there when Dyson has long gone.[/p][/quote]Kimcrawley - I disagree. This process is more like what happened when an expansion was proposed last time; "Oh, you won't let me expand, well I'll move assembly to Malaysia then." Which is possible what was wanted really anyway. This is more likely Dyson (the business not necessarily the person) controlling the situation to make a move elsewhere less problematic. Basically make Dyson look like the victim and that moving is their only option. They outgrew the old lighting factory years ago and the design facilities are insufficient and unsuitable. I've never worked in such a un-inspirational place and it always baffled me that they'd place their design team in such a bland environment. wiltshireborne
  • Score: -1

7:09pm Wed 19 Feb 14

kimcrawley says...

I too worked at Dyson, for a few months. I have never seen a more disorganised and ineffective production process. I witnessed huge incompetence and some of the worst bullying by supervisors I have ever seen.
Dyson - the person does not like unions or anybody saying to him 'That's not right.'
To separate Dyson the person from his company is inaccurate. He is an autocrat unable to negotiate or compromise. Essentially if he does not get his own way, he's off.
His much vaunted engineering academy to be built in Bath petered out when he could not get his own way, and turned into the funding of 3 posts at Imperial. (Researching an industry standard that he would like to patent as his own original idea, look at how he is such a vigorous litigant this is how he works).
I too worked at Dyson, for a few months. I have never seen a more disorganised and ineffective production process. I witnessed huge incompetence and some of the worst bullying by supervisors I have ever seen. Dyson - the person does not like unions or anybody saying to him 'That's not right.' To separate Dyson the person from his company is inaccurate. He is an autocrat unable to negotiate or compromise. Essentially if he does not get his own way, he's off. His much vaunted engineering academy to be built in Bath petered out when he could not get his own way, and turned into the funding of 3 posts at Imperial. (Researching an industry standard that he would like to patent as his own original idea, look at how he is such a vigorous litigant this is how he works). kimcrawley
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree