The Department for Transport (DfT) has launched a ranking system for how well each local highway authority is maintaining its roads, however senior sector figures have raised concerns about the underlying accuracy of the data the ratings have been based on.
Ministers released an interactive map, which reveals the rating of every local highway authority in England. For 2025 to 2026, the results show:
- 16 green-rated local highway authorities (top performing)
- 125 amber-rated local highway authorities
- 13 red-rated local highway authorities (lowest performing)
Performance is measured by ratings in three areas to create an overall score:
- The current condition of local roads
- How much each local highway authority is spending on maintaining its local roads
- How effectively each local highway authority follows best practice in highways maintenance - for example, by using technologies to fix and prevent potholes more efficiently
A full breakdown of the methodology can be found here.
The figures are largely based on public transparency reports and condition reporting provided by councils. 'Local authorities with good local road condition, high adoption of best practice, and that invest significantly into maintaining their roads receive a green rating,' DfT officials said.
A lot of money is riding on the results of these rankings - running into the millions. The DfT has said that local highway authorities currently rated red will receive 'dedicated support to bring them in line with best practices, backed by £300,000 worth of expert planning and capability assistance'.
On top of this, an 'incentive funding' element, top-sliced from local cash allocations for roads, is based on councils providing transparency reports. This financial year the incentive element is worth £125m in total across the country (25% of the £500m additional funding for 2025 to 2026). In 2026 to 2027, 50% of the incentive funding 'will be subject to local highways authorities' performance'. Further details on the performance-based measure will be confirmed in due course.
Transport secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'For too long, drivers have paid the price because our roads were left to deteriorate. I have heard time and again their frustration on footing the bill because they hit a pothole – money they should never have to spend in the first place.
'We've put our money where our mouth is, increasing the funding for local highway authorities with £7.3bn to fix roads and given them the long-term certainty they have been asking for. Now it's over to them to spend the money wisely, and for the first time, we are making sure the public can see how well councils are doing in delivering the improvements they want to see in their local area.'
Inaccuracies
Major concerns have been raised about the results.
Angela Jones, president of council directors body ADEPT said: 'The newly published ratings raise significant questions about the assessment methodology. We would like clarity on how ratings have been calculated, including how different data collection approaches and funding allocation timings have been factored into assessments. We need to ensure the ratings fairly reflect genuine progress across different local authority areas - in the future, we believe local authorities should have the opportunity to verify data and clarify any factual questions before ratings are published, to ensure accuracy and build confidence in the system.'
A spokesperson for Suffolk Highways took the unusual step of stating the DfT's data was 'inaccurate'.
'This new traffic light assessment system rates Suffolk as amber on road condition and following best practice, but red on spending money - resulting in an overall red rating. However, there are unfortunate inaccuracies in the data so we will be raising this with the DfT,' he said.
'All highways maintenance funding received from Government is fully invested in Suffolk's highways network, including fixing potholes and resurfacing roads. This is why Suffolk has continued to receive all of the funding it expected this year, including incentive fund elements linked to performance.'
Respected Industry insider and former CEO of LCRIG, Paula Claytonsmith, told Highways: 'There looks to be fundamental errors with the source data used in the transparency reports. Much of it around the spending data. I think some councils have misunderstood the question or at least, there seem to be different interpretations on how to answer the question on how much capital spend has been assigned this year.
'Some councils have put down their entire capital spend, which is something of a red flag because it would almost certainly include planned spending for future years as well. On the other hand, others seem to have only put down what is allocated for this year, so their capital figures look like they are not spending their full amount. Which is not fair. If a council has forward plans – as some do – and they only put this down this year's spending for this year, they could have been marked down, but the money and full allocation is still being spent.
'On all the 13 councils that have been rated as ‘red', I have identified some form of discrepancy in the Highways maintenance spending figures table as part of their transparency reports. As there is no worked example you could see how errors might creep in. On top of this, there are issues around whether the capital and revenue division has also caused confusion. Should some capital spending (but not maintenance) be included in maintenance figure? because some councils have done this. This is something I think the DfT and the sector are going to have to investigate and provide more clarity on - if we are to give public confidence then this has to be paramount.
'Obviously with extra funding to support "Red" listed authorities to help improve performance, it is important from an auditing, value and accuracy for money point of view that we establish whether that money is really going to the right place.'
Chief executive of the Road Surface Treatments Association, Mike Hansford, told Highways: 'We need to determine some clarity on what is perceived to be ‘preventative maintenance'; with one ‘green' rated authority's transparency reported figures, appearing to be contradictory to their statistics on reported ‘road lengths receiving treatments' in RDC0321. There was an error in the original guidance document for the transparency reporting, which listed ‘resurfacing' as an example of preventative maintenance. Which in this example may have caused some confusion.
'Whilst resurfacing end-of-life roads has a big part to play in road maintenance, there are preventative, low-cost treatments that can be applied earlier in its life, which keep the road in good condition for longer, and prevents potholes (whilst also reducing carbon), therefore considered to be ‘preventative'. Some of the ratings do identify some surprises; with some local authorities who are fully embracing preventative maintenance and permanent repair solutions, but are only rated ‘amber'.'
A DfT spokesperson told Highways 'We are shining a light of transparency on the work of councils to fix roads and end the pothole plague. The suggestion that the Department has mishandled or ignored data is categorically untrue. The ratings follow a clear, published methodology using data from official statistics that local authorities provided themselves.'
The RSTA has free training events, which will recommence in 2026 (starting with the RSTA Annual Conference on the 16th April at The Belfry, Sutton Coldfield.
