Dear all, Thank you all for your incredible support - over 2,600 signatures, and going strong! We've already seen the first results of this petition, with several newspaper articles floating the issue, and a special news segment on BBC London. The CEO of LLDC has acknowledged the issue, and said on camera that the LLDC will look into planning options which are more inline with the developing nature of the area – so that’s a positive development. A very important and particularly unacceptable aspect of this project is the language and "assumptions" that the applicants have used in their surveys with the intent of making the factories in question seem more acceptable. Don’t take my word for it, here are some *direct* quotes from some of the "surveys": On how Noise should be assessed, taken From the Noise Survey Ref 4418: "Based on the guidance in BS 8233:2014, for buildings exposed to these levels of sound, OPEN WINDOWS WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE RELIED UPON FOR VENTILATION (caps not in original doc). The buildings on Otter Close, Iceland Road and Wick Lane are all relatively modern buildings built to modern standards incorporating suitable mitigation measures for noise from traffic sources. Similarly, the potential future residential sites will be built to modern standards and, therefore, contain trickle ventilation units, hence removing the requirement for windows to be open for ventilation. Therefore, it is sensible to assess internal environments with windows closed." TL;DR - Essentially this states that if all our windows are double glazed and we keep them closed at all times than there isn't any noise problem. Great stuff.... On the Visibility of site, taken from the Visual Impact survey YOR.2666.001: "If one was to produce a ZVI/ZTV of the combined development at The Development Site using commercially available elevation data it would not take account of the screening effect of built structures that surround it and the output would be a plan which simply implied visibility across the vast majority of East London and beyond as there is little topographic variation across this part of the Thames Valley. A plan of this nature would not add any value to the assessment or assist in the actual identification of buildings with a view of the development. TL;DR - if we were to create a survey using *real* elevation data, it would show that the site can be seen from pretty much everywhere in East London (hence has a major visual impact). So we decided that we won't create that survey... On Air Pollution, taken from the Air Quality Report JAE8702: “Odour has not been considered as part of this assessment as it is only the UA facility that could potentially give rise to odour emissions.” “construction- vehicle exhaust emissions have not been assessed specifically.” “Analysis shows that statistically, on the basis of the dataset available here, the chance of measuring an hourly nitrogen dioxide objective exceedence whilst reporting an annual-mean NO2 of less than 60 μg.m-3 is very low....It is therefore recommended that local authorities continue to use the threshold of 60 μg.m-3 NO2 as the guideline for considering a likely exceedence of the hourly-mean nitrogen dioxide objective.” 
 TL;DR – in the same document, page 4, the recommended annual limit is stated at 40 μg.m-3 And finally, from the same document, one of the most telling paragraphs: “The significance of the effects arising from the impacts on air quality will depend on a number of factors and will need to be considered alongside the benefits of the development in question. Development under current planning policy is required to be sustainable and the definition of this includes social and economic dimensions, as well as environmental. Development brings opportunities for reducing emissions at a wider level through the use of more efficient technologies and better designed buildings, which could well displace emissions elsewhere, even if they increase at the development site. Conversely, development can also have adverse consequences for air quality at a wider level through its effects on trip generation.” 
 “Impact descriptors are not, of themselves, a clear and unambiguous guide to reaching a conclusion on significance. These impact descriptors are intended for application at a series of individual receptors. Whilst it maybe that there are ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ or ‘substantial’ impacts at one or more receptors, the overall effect may not necessarily be judged as being significant in some circumstances…Professional judgement by a competent, suitably qualified professional is required to establish the significance associated with the consequence of the impacts. This judgement is likely to take into account the extent of the current and future population exposure to the impacts and the influence and/or validity of any assumptions adopted during the assessment process.” TL;DR – this is a straight out admittance of “sugar coating” if I’ve ever seen one. We will soon be moving this campaign to offline channels and to the streets, and will keep you posted on developments. H