Earlier this year, Londoners were led to believe by Keir Starmer’s government, Brent Labour leadership and big tech companies that the introduction of robotaxis in the capital was essential, inevitable and imminent.
However, since April, when a serious Waymo incident happened in Harlesden, a coalition formed by Brent Green Party, trade unions and campaigning group Pull the Plug has been challenging this narrative and asking Sadiq Khan to hit pause on the robotaxis trial.
Now, just over three weeks after Brent Green Party members, trade unionists, local transport workers and residents protested outside Waymo’s depot in Park Royal, the FT has revealed that driverless vehicles are unlikely to be introduced in London this year.
TFL is not in a rush to publish regulatory guidance for driverless companies, and the Transport Committee of the London Assembly is yet to publish the result of its investigation on Autonomous Passenger Vehicles.
Councillor Amandine Alexandre, Green Party councillor for Harlesden and Kensal Green said:
This delay is a win for all the people who have been lifting up the veil on the negative impact robotaxis would have on jobs, road safety, privacy, but also safeguarding of our children, and our environment. This spanner in the wheel of extractive tech companies will be welcomed by the majority of Londoners. According to a YouGov poll published in July, 42% of us are opposed to the roll-out of so-called Autonomous Vehicles.
Londoners have a lot of issues to battle with day-to-day - a suffocating rising cost of living, unaffordable housing and extreme heat. Improving their quality of life and protecting their jobs, and their health, should be the priority of the Labour Mayor of London Sadiq Khan.
AI-powered vehicles that generate tons of data stored in water and energy-hungry data centres are not the future of London. Londoners are the future of London.
NOTES
- Harlesden Says No to Waymo is a Brent Green Party campaign that was launched at the end of April 2026 after a WAYMO vehicle drove through a live police cordon on Harlesden High Street on April 22nd while officers were investigating a double stabbing.
- A petition was launched at the same time and has gathered so far almost 450 signatures.
10 comments:
Robotaxis are coming, 42% may be opposed now but the majority of Londoners are either in favour or have no opinion either way and 29% of Londoners already say they will use robotaxis when they are available. Data centres are necessary - where do Greens think their website is hosted, on Zack's laptop? The Greens are basically Luddites and an increasingly irrelevant agitprop performative protest group. In the future it will be clear that autonomous vehicles have a far better safety record than human drivers and personal car ownership will fall, making our streets safer and greener. By then the Greens will have made an embarrassing U turn like they did on HS2
What an uninformed comment. In your world people don't need jobs, and obviously the growing population definitely don't need enough drinking water. But don't worry, data centres, plastic grass and concrete will all keep us warm in winter.
What we need is driverless underground trains so that the underground is much more affordable - if it was many more people would turn to public transport and leave their cars at home.
Reply to Anon (29 August 2026 at 11:32). You may be uninformed about closed loop cooling systems used in UK data centres, they won't impact drinking water. Most of the protest hyperbole is selectively chosen from USA data. Btw, last century there were 1.2 million men and 65,000 pit ponies working down the coal mines in dirty dangerous conditions. Do you want to go back to that system or work down the pit yourself? Progress means change and there will always be some dislocation.
Yes this! Turn the whole tube into robots. Waterloo & city is great
Many thanks for your comment. Under a high-growth scenario, Thames Water estimate that data centres would drive almost 30% of all new water demand in the region – around 270 million litres per day – becoming one of the dominant pressures on regional supply.
I am keen to understand how that estimate accounts for the closed loop cooling systems and whether it is an overestimate. Unfortunately I am not finding the industry very forthcoming on this level of detail which is partially why the Green Party is calling for a moratorium. Please let me know where I can find out more on this.
Reply to Cllr Gallagher: From https://kaodataparkroyal.co.uk/environment-and-sustainability/ "the proposed liquid cooling systems operate using a closed-loop circuit – once it’s filled, the system recirculates the same water rather than using fresh water. As a result, the lifetime water consumption of the cooling system is expected to be very low. By comparison, over a similar period, a typical family household would consume substantially more water through normal day-to-day activities such as bathing, washing, cooking and drinking."
In your recent guest blog and planning objection to the Frogmore Data Centre you wrote "Thames Water has explicitly indicated that the existing water network cannot support the additional demand from this development" Please let us know where you found this explicit info because it doesn't seem that Thames raised any objection - nor would they to a large business using less water than a family home
Reply to Cllr Gallagher You write "Under a high-growth scenario, Thames Water estimate that data centres would drive almost 30% of all new water demand in the region – around 270 million litres per day – becoming one of the dominant pressures on regional supply." This was taken directly from https://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/latest/news/report-reveals-majority-of-new-data-centres-planned-for-water-stressed-areas That report referenced as its source a Thames Water management plan from 2024, however the Thames doc contains no mention of data centres. Your claim that data centres will drive 30% of new water demand has no apparent basis. Please check your sources and correct your claims as appropriate
Thank you for the comment and for checking the source.
You are correct that Thames Water's published 2024 Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP24) does not itemise data centres separately; its commercial projections are aggregated under broad non-household SIC codes. The specific ~270 Ml/d (~30%) scenario came from an analysis by Global Action Plan applying external data centre cooling estimates to Thames Water’s high-growth commercial deficit forecasts.
I am happy to clarify that distinction, but the underlying issue remains unchanged: the acute lack of data transparency.
In the Environment Agency's recently published National Framework for Water Resources 2025 (Section 9.4), the regulator warns that data centres require immense volumes of water for cooling, often competing directly for potable supply, and confirms that some water companies have already refused applications.
Most importantly, the Environment Agency notes that it is currently hampered because operators do not disclose their water usage:
"We are experiencing barriers in gaining information about water consumption. Other sectors who are working with data centres have reported the same issues. Data is vital for long term planning and identifying opportunities for collaboration between sectors and without it we are unable to accurately model or predict future water needs."
When regulators state on record that they cannot accurately model future water security because the industry withholds consumption data, caution and public scrutiny are not just appropriate, they are essential. It becomes even more essential when we are experiencing extreme drought as a direct consequence of man-made climate breakdown.
Hello Anonymous,
Thames Water did write in response to the original application in May. I have the letter and can share with you if you would like a copy.
Thames Water highlighted that under Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the applicant must demonstrate whether existing sewage treatment and network infrastructure, both on and off-site, can meet the development’s demand, and whether necessary infrastructure can actually be delivered ahead of occupation.
Thames Water does not confirm adequate capacity upfront. Instead, they explicitly place the burden on the developer to prove that wastewater and sewage networks will not be overwhelmed. If my previous phrasing suggested a definitive declaration of network failure rather than Thames Water formally identifying capacity constraints and network demand as key unresolved impacts requiring proof, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the wording.
Regarding operational water use: while some modern facilities utilise closed-loop or direct-to-chip cooling that reduces standard day-to-day potable water demand, data centres of this scale carry significant site-wide drainage, surface water run-off, and peak wastewater implications.
Thames Water specifically flagged surface drainage, flood risk, and off-site sewage infrastructure as critical matters that must be evaluated.
Ensuring local infrastructure can absorb the cumulative demand of large-scale developments across Park Royal should be a vital planning consideration for the committee and the community.
Post a Comment