Personal Delivery Devices (PDDs) are small autonomous vehicles designed to carry goods over short distances. Using cameras, sensors, GPS, artificial intelligence, and remote support, they navigate pavements, crossings, and shared-use routes, usually at little more than walking speed.
Initial trials have developed into regular operations in places including Milton Keynes, Leeds, Sheffield, Barnsley, Bristol, Sunderland, and Cambridge.
These small robots offer a glimpse of future urban logistics. By carrying groceries, takeaway food, parcels, and other goods, they may help reduce congestion, lower emissions, and improve delivery efficiency. However, any emerging technology operating in public spaces also raises questions for local authorities about safety, accessibility, privacy, and public confidence.
Although commonly associated with grocery and food deliveries, their potential uses are wider, including parcel distribution, pharmacy services, university campuses, and industrial sites. As demand for convenience grows, logistics providers see autonomous delivery as one response to last-mile pressures.
Environmental arguments are also important. Operators promote PDDs as a lower-carbon alternative to short-distance deliveries by vans and cars, making the technology attractive to organisations pursuing net-zero and sustainable transport goals.
A technology moving faster than regulation
Despite their increasing visibility, autonomous delivery robots operate in an uncertain legal landscape.
There is currently no dedicated national regulatory framework for PDDs in the UK. Deployment therefore relies largely on existing highways legislation, local agreements, and trial arrangements. The Department for Transport has funded research and supported further trials to understand the technology and inform future legislation.
Until a fuller framework emerges, local authorities will remain central to decision-making, balancing innovation with public safety, accessibility, and effective highway management.
Keeping people safe
When new technology enters public space, safety is often the first concern.
Operators report millions of successful deliveries, but councils must consider how devices behave in real public environments. Busy streets, school runs, roadworks, events, and poor weather can all create conditions that may not be fully replicated in testing.
The question is whether they can navigate safely and consistently when faced with unexpected situations.
Councils are therefore likely to expect robust safety arrangements, including defined operating zones, speed limits, geofencing, obstacle detection, remote monitoring, emergency stop functions and clear incident reporting.
Public perception matters too. Even isolated incidents can attract media attention and affect confidence in both the technology and those permitting its use.
Accessibility must remain a priority
For many councils, accessibility may be the most important consideration.
Pavements already accommodate street furniture, signs, utility works, bins, outdoor seating, and parked vehicles. Disability organisations and walking charities have raised concerns about the cumulative impact of delivery robots on constrained pedestrian environments.
Accessibility is not only about physical obstruction. People with visual impairments, mobility difficulties or other access needs may be uncertain how autonomous devices will behave around crossings, corners or crowded spaces.
Councils should consider accessibility from the outset. Equality Impact Assessments, route suitability reviews, and engagement with disability groups can identify concerns before they become significant issues.
Managing operational, cyber and privacy risks
Councils must also consider the practical risks of connected technologies in public spaces.
A small pilot may have limited impact, but wider adoption by several operators could create issues around congestion, obstruction, monitoring and enforcement. Clear operating conditions, recovery arrangements and performance reporting can help manage these risks.
Cyber security is another key consideration. PDDs depend on software, communications networks, cloud services and remote support. A cyber incident could affect service delivery, navigation, or oversight, so councils should seek assurance on controls, testing, and incident response.
Because these devices use cameras and environmental sensing, data protection must also be addressed. Privacy notices, Data Protection Impact Assessments, retention rules, and UK GDPR compliance are important to maintaining public trust.
Building public confidence
The success of PDDs will depend as much on public acceptance as on technical performance.
Residents may welcome innovations that improve services and support sustainability, but concerns about safety, accessibility and public space can generate strong opposition if not addressed effectively.
Transparent decision-making, meaningful consultation, and ongoing engagement are essential. By showing that risks have been assessed and controls are in place, councils can build confidence that innovation is being introduced responsibly.
PDDs undoubtedly offer exciting opportunities to modernise last-mile delivery. Yet their successful integration into the public realm will require a proportionate, evidence-based and risk-led approach. Councils that strike the right balance between encouraging innovation and protecting the interests of all users are likely to be best placed to realise the benefits while managing the risks.
