The open water
is worth protecting.
We support regeneration. We question the decision to put permanent homes in the dock. Here is our case, with the proposal’s intentions and our concerns kept separate.
The open water is the asset
What the proposal says
The October material says the design should retain the dock’s openness. It shows small footprints and homes of 1–3 storeys, with views between them.
Official early ideas · 3, 11Our concern · campaign position
We believe open water has value beyond the gaps left between buildings. A permanent residential use would change the experience of the basin even where long views remain.
What we want demonstrated
Publish a measured footprint, maximum scale and verified views from public routes at dock level. Compare the proposal with a future that retains the open basin.
Public access ≠ open water
What the proposal says
A landscaped public boardwalk would extend the accessible dock edge. Shared community facilities and step-free access are part of the design intentions.
Official early ideas · 4–5, 11Our concern · campaign position
These could bring benefits. But access onto a new walkway and keeping water open are different things. We question whether those benefits require a residential development.
What we want demonstrated
Show precisely which spaces are public, residential or shared; their opening hours and any restrictions; and how accessible routes and maintenance would be guaranteed.
Affordable housing and public benefit
What the proposal says
The proposals envisage boats and purpose-built floating homes for different households, with a mix that could change over time. Affordability is an acknowledged community concern.
Official early ideas · 6, 10–11Our concern · campaign position
We support more homes in suitable locations. That does not establish that this water is the right place for them, or that the homes would meet local housing needs.
What we want demonstrated
Set out tenure, affordability, allocation, occupancy and short-term letting arrangements. Publish a fair comparison with land-based locations and explain why this location is necessary.
Heritage and character
What the proposal says
The early ideas respond to the surrounding dock landscape and Britannia Village. Historic England separately records the dockside Stothert and Pitt cranes as Grade II listed.
Official early ideas · 3; Historic England entry 1393528Historic England · official list entry 1393528 ↗Our concern · campaign position
For us, the historic character includes the relationship between the cranes, dock edges, long views and the scale of the open water. Keeping individual features is not the whole question.
What we want demonstrated
Provide a heritage and townscape assessment, including cumulative effects and views at water and dock-edge level. Explain how alternatives were assessed.
Wildlife and aquatic habitats
What the proposal says
The proposals aim to add habitats above and below water. They specify all-electric homes and no discharge from homes into the dock. An environmental strategy has been published.
Official early ideas · 8–9, 11Published environmental strategy ↗Our concern · campaign position
These intentions should be tested against the effects of permanent occupation, including shading, lighting, noise and disturbance. We do not claim that harm has already been demonstrated.
What we want demonstrated
Publish baseline surveys, seasonal findings, cumulative-impact assessment, monitoring arrangements and enforceable mitigation. Compare outcomes with less intensive alternatives.
Recreational open water, navigation and events
What the proposal says
Page 11 says swimming would not be allowed within Floating Residential, with swimming limited to supervised public areas. The wider vision discusses existing water operators and possible relocations.
Official early ideas · 11; wider vision FAQsOfficial wider vision and governance FAQs ↗Our concern · campaign position
Permanent homes can create lasting constraints on how nearby water is used. We want existing users’ needs and future opportunities to have meaningful weight in the decision.
What we want demonstrated
Publish navigation and safety plans, retained water-use areas, event and servicing arrangements, and the results of engagement with operators. Explain any proposed relocation and its delivery.
Long-term privatisation / semi-privatisation
What the proposal says
The early ideas distinguish public and residential areas and propose a changing mix of boats and homes. The official website identifies the GLA as freeholder and Royal Docks Waterways as long leaseholder.
Official early ideas · 10–11; governance FAQsOfficial wider vision and governance FAQs ↗Our concern · campaign position
Our concern is the long-term allocation of water to private residential use and possible restrictions around it. This is not a claim that the dock is being sold or that public routes will be closed.
What we want demonstrated
Publish tenure and management arrangements, enforceable public-access rights, expansion limits and remedies if access is restricted or the operator fails.
Delivery and financial case
What the proposal says
The project is undergoing a feasibility study. Royal Docks Waterways says income from activity in the docks supports infrastructure and that surpluses are reinvested.
Official early ideas · 1; wider vision FAQsOfficial wider vision and governance FAQs ↗Our concern · campaign position
The financial case should make the costs, risks and public benefits clear. A need to fund dock upkeep does not, in our view, settle which development option should be chosen.
What we want demonstrated
Publish capital and maintenance costs, required returns, liabilities, affordability assumptions, alternatives and an exit plan. Explain who would bear the costs if the operator or management company failed.
Water quality and circulation
What the proposal says
The Environmental Strategy seeks to protect water quality and healthy oxygen levels, with monitoring of ecological change. The October ideas also state that homes would not discharge into the dock.
Environmental Strategy · printed page 15 (PDF page 16)Official early ideas · page 9Our concern · campaign position
We want to understand how a permanent residential footprint and its infrastructure would interact with circulation, light and water health. The existence of a strategy does not resolve the effects of a particular layout.
What we want demonstrated
Publish baseline water-quality results, circulation modelling and seasonal assessments. Explain how construction, maintenance and cumulative effects would be managed, monitored and independently checked.
Existing businesses and activities
What the proposal says
The wider vision FAQ says existing operators face no short-term impact. It describes discussions about an alternative location further east for Wake Up Docklands, with Oiler Bar potentially moving alongside it.
Official wider vision FAQ · existing water operatorsOur concern · campaign position
A possible relocation is not the same as an agreed, deliverable replacement. We want local businesses, jobs and established activities to have a secure future. These discussions concern the wider vision, not solely Floating Residential.
What we want demonstrated
Publish the proposed arrangements, operator agreement, costs, access and timetable for any relocation. Demonstrate continuity and a viable location before making changes to existing activities.
Parking, deliveries and waste management
What the proposal says
The October document records residents’ concerns about waste, deliveries, servicing and noise. It proposes high standards of construction and proactive long-term management.
Official early ideas · 10Our concern · campaign position
Homes need practical connections to land. We want evidence that their day-to-day operation would work alongside existing homes, businesses and public routes, rather than assuming either no impact or unacceptable harm.
What we want demonstrated
Set out parking demand, delivery and refuse routes, storage, collection times, utilities capacity and emergency access. Explain who manages and pays for the infrastructure and how complaints would be resolved.
Construction disruption
What the proposal says
The Environmental Strategy expects environmental objectives to inform construction as well as design and operation. It anticipates detailed action plans following the appointment of delivery partners.
Environmental Strategy · printed page 33 (PDF page 34)Our concern · campaign position
A strategy does not tell neighbours how work would affect their everyday lives. We want the likely duration and effects assessed before decisions are taken. We do not claim a construction programme has been approved.
What we want demonstrated
Provide a construction and logistics plan covering working hours, noise, vibration, dust, water protection and temporary access restrictions. Explain how businesses and recreational users would be consulted and supported.
These are campaign arguments and requests for evidence. They are not findings that harm has already occurred, or assertions that the project team has not considered these matters. Sources checked 8 October 2026.