AINSWORTH could lose its only major industry at the expense of housing.

But if the controversial plan is rejected, Sealocrete, based in Church Street, is threatening to expand its operation in the village.

The firm, which manufactures chemicals and specialist products for the building industry, has revealed that it needs to merge its Ainsworth and Rochdale operations.

Sealocrete bosses want to sell the Ainsworth site for housing and re-site its business elsewhere. Alternatively, they say its entire factory manufacturing production could move to Ainsworth.

Some villagers claim this is an attempt to force them into supporting the housing option.

Councillor Barry Briggs, who is a resident of Ainsworth, said: "Sealocrete is holding a loaded gun not just to the head of the village, but to the planning authority as well. It is playing silly games and its motives appear to be extremely dubious.

"That site is designated for employment use and it is important that it remains so if the village is to remain sustainable. Sealocrete should not try and wipe it out for housing, which would obviously make them a lot of money. If they want to sell it, then I am sure it is suitable for other employment use."

Sealocrete has approached Ainsworth Village Design Team, an off-shoot of the Ainsworth Community Association, which has produced a questionnaire to gauge the mood in the village.

One resident who is firmly against Sealocrete's housing ambitions is Ray Vevers.

He said: "We don't need any more housing in Ainsworth. The Sealocrete site is important for providing jobs for local people. It won't be a proper village if there is no industry."

Tim Herod, landlord of the Duke William pub, said: "Although I am inclined to back the move for housing, it does feel like Sealocrete are threatening us and being manipulative."

It is not the first time housing has been proposed for the site, which had been used for many years as a timber yard until it closed in 1992.

In 1995 Kennedy Homes sought planning approval to demolish the timber yard buildings and build 29 homes in their place.

On that occasion Ainsworth Community Association objected to the plans because they said the industrial and employment potential of the site would be lost. It felt the site should be used to regenerate employment. Planning bosses agreed and rejected the application.

But by 1997, the derelict yard and factory had been labelled by some as an eyesore, prompting a U-turn in the attitudes of some residents. This caused divided opinion in the village as those whose homes overlooked the site supported housing, while other villagers insisted the site should remain for employment and industry.

Later that year a Sheffield company expressed an interest in demolishing the yard and building 32 homes, but nothing materialised. Instead, Sealocrete bought the site in 1999.

That was not the end of the controversy however, as some residents complained of "sickening smells" generated by Sealocrete. The company responded by spending £40,000 on specially designed equipment to remove the odours.

Coun Briggs added: "I have written to Ainsworth Community Association advising caution. There needs to be serious debate and discussion between the planning authority, Sealocrete and all residents. People should not feel they are being bulldozed into making a decision."

Despite several calls from the Radcliffe Times, Sealocrete failed to respond.