Questions grow over TfL’s powers after autonomous PHV cap set at 15 vehicles

London’s autonomous vehicle rollout has entered a new phase, with Transport for London (TfL) approving early trials while facing renewed scrutiny over the limits of its regulatory powers. The decision to allow a maximum of 15 autonomous private hire vehicles during initial deployment has prompted industry questions about why TfL can restrict numbers for driverless PHVs but not for conventional operators.

The issue surfaced after TaxiPoint reported that TfL’s consent for autonomous passenger services includes a numerical cap, applied under the Government’s automated vehicles permitting scheme. Under the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and the Automated Passenger Services Regulations 2026, autonomous services require both a DVSA‑issued permit and local authority consent. That consent can include conditions relating to safety, local impacts and operational limits — including fleet size.

This contrasts sharply with London’s established PHV licensing regime, where TfL has repeatedly stated it has no legal power to cap the number of human‑driven PHVs. The autonomous vehicle framework, designed centrally by the Department for Transport, explicitly allows local authorities to set conditions as part of the statutory consent process. The result is a regulatory anomaly: TfL can restrict autonomous PHV numbers to 15 vehicles, but cannot impose any equivalent limit on traditional PHV fleets.

The question has gained traction as autonomous trials accelerate. TaxiPoint reports that TfL’s approval of the first “robocab” trial received cautious backing from the London Assembly Transport Committee, which said the consent was “necessary” but stressed the need for stronger clarity on TfL’s role. Committee members have repeatedly warned that London must retain meaningful oversight of safety, data‑sharing, operational rules and local impacts before large‑scale deployment.

Meanwhile, Wayve has been granted a private hire operator’s licence by TfL ahead of a planned autonomous Uber trial in London — a milestone that brings autonomous PHVs into the same licensing category as human‑driven services, even though their permitting route is entirely separate. Wayve’s licence does not override the 15‑vehicle cap, which remains tied to the DVSA permitting process and TfL’s consent conditions.

The emerging debate centres on whether the Government’s autonomous vehicle framework inadvertently highlights gaps in London’s wider PHV licensing powers. If TfL can restrict autonomous PHV numbers for safety and local impact reasons, industry figures argue it raises the question of why similar powers are not available for conventional PHVs, particularly given long‑standing concerns about congestion, air quality and regulatory balance.

As autonomous operators prepare further trials, the tension between central government control and devolved London regulation is expected to intensify. The Assembly has already signalled that ministers must clarify TfL’s long‑term authority over autonomous services — and whether the new permitting model should prompt a wider review of PHV licensing powers in the capital.