Suffolk County Council has written to the roads minister to appeal its red rating for road maintenance - the worst category under the Department for Transport's new council rating system.

Council officials also heavily criticised the department for not giving the authority a chance to comment on the ratings before they were published by the DfT, claiming 'a request to delay publication to do this had been rejected'. Senior council officers said this was 'unacceptable' and that other departments would allow such a protocol.

Cabinet member for operational highways, Paul West, wrote to minister Simon Lightwood to 'formally place on record a factual error within the Department for Transport's Local Highway Maintenance Ratings'.

He went on to say that Suffolk has been rated red for capital spend 'based on factually incorrect figures', adding that consistently over the past five years, 'every pound received by Suffolk County Council through the Highway Maintenance Grant has been fully invested in the highway service'.

Mr West wrote that following a meeting with DfT officials on Monday, it appears that the red rating for capital spend had arisen for two specific reasons relating to its 'transparency report' - all councils had to provide DfT with these reports last year: the rating system was largely based on these results.

'First, the Council did not include the incentive element of the uplift in its June 2025 submission, as confirmation that this funding would be released by DfT had not been received at that point. Confirmation from the Department was only provided in late December 2025. Now that this funding has been confirmed as available cash, plans are in place for it to be fully spent within the current financial year, he said.

'Secondly, £10 million of the 2025/26 DfT allocation was brought forward and invested in 2024/25, a decision taken due to longer-term future maintenance funding under the DfT's Network North mechanism at that time. This decision is clearly reflected in the Transparency Report submitted in June 2025.'

Suffolk added that at the time of the publication of the transparency report - prior to the DfT confirming the 25% incentive fund uplift - Suffolk County Council's capital spend on highways was £36.398m in 2025/26 and £47.885m in 2024/25. This compares with the DfT confirmed capital allocations of £40.833m and £34.428m respectively.

Mr West argued that had the £10m brought forward been spent in 2025/26 instead, and Suffolk County Council included the unconfirmed 25% incentive element spend against this allocation, capital expenditure would have been £49.153m in 2025/26 and £37.885m in 2024/25. In either scenario, total capital spend across the two years amounts to £87.038 million, against a total DfT allocation of £78.196m.

'Applying the Department's own scoring methodology to these figures places Suffolk County Council clearly within the Amber band, rather than Red. We would therefore be grateful if this factual correction could be reflected as soon as possible in the Department's published assessment.

Andrew Cook, executive director of growth, highways and infrastructure for Suffolk, added that the council was unhappy it was not given the chance to comment on the ratings and accompanying report before it was published by the DfT, and claimed 'a request to delay publication to do this had been rejected'.

'Other government departments routinely undertake proper due diligence before publishing assessments of this nature,' he said. 'We feel it is unacceptable that this standard was not met on this occasion.'

'Other highways authorities have also voiced concerns about the accuracy of the ratings and there is growing consensus across the highway industry that the DfT mechanism is fundamentally flawed.'

Suffolk Highways added that the DfT website shows only 3% of Suffolk's A road network is in poor condition, better than the England average, with the proportion in good condition broadly aligned to the national figure.

Suffolk's B and C roads also outperform national averages, with a high share in good condition and significantly fewer in poor condition, the county said.

The DfT has been approached for comment.