Highways maintenance and potholes ran through the 2026/27 budgets of Reform-led county authorities, with officers repeatedly casting the funding shortfall as a national problem rather than a local failure.[1][2] Where administrations added money they funded it from their own budgets, borrowing or claimed efficiency savings, and leaned on Department for Transport maintenance grants rather than any programme branded Network North.[3][4][5][6]
“the total backlog for all highway assets was currently estimated at just over £1 billion.” source ↗
“It's actually a backlog of 17,000 potholes. We've now filled in 45,000 potholes, which is 10,000 potholes more than the previous year-on-year comparison.” source ↗
“Officers noted the deficit in funding allocated to drainage assets, explaining the issue of highway asset depreciation and backlog was a national issue.” source ↗
“will work with all councillors to address the backlog in road maintenance and improve infrastructure delivery” source ↗
“resulting in a backlog of 1,624 permanent repair jobs” source ↗
“a Capital Highways Maintenance grant of £56 million, representing an additional £2 million compared to the previous year.” source ↗
“Approve the introduction of the £3.000m Member-led Minor Residential Roads Resurfacing Programme and delegates to the Highways Director, as Chair of Highways Capital Programme Board, and the Cabinet Member for Potholes, Roads and Transport the approval to amend or extend this Programme” source ↗
“It was also noted that paragraph 3.6 of the Update proposed the creation of two new reserves, to provide a £0.5m Community Fund to provide funding for local community projects and a £4m Highway Improvement Fund to focus additional funding to target drainage issues and potholes on the highway.” source ↗
“£15m into highways, supported by service efficiencies and a new delivery model which has enabled timely repairs of all high-risk defects” source ↗
“2) That, subject to the support of the Corporate Asset Management Group, the Transport and Environment Portfolio Capital Programme be varied by £15m to reflect the additional investment in the Highways Improvement Programme funded from borrowing.” source ↗
“The proposed apportionment of the 2026/27 Department for Transport Highway Maintenance funding grant of £48.526m and the additional £18.474m provided in the budget, as detailed in the report and at Appendices 'A' and 'B' of the report, be approved” source ↗
“This amendment proposes an increase to the Highways Asset Maintenance Fund, with the additional £180k specifically allocated for pothole repairs across the county.” source ↗
“The proposal set out in Table F was not carried, with 19 members voting for the amendment and 23 voting against.” source ↗
“a recorded vote was taken on the fifth amendment by the Conservative Group. Upon being put to the vote the amendment fell.” source ↗
“additional investment in highways repairs, and support for local communities through the councillor empowerment funding and planning support for parishes.” source ↗
In Derbyshire the cabinet member for potholes put the inherited backlog at 17,000 potholes rather than the larger figure opponents cited, and rebutted a circulated 100,000 backlog claim as actually the number of potholes filled in a year.[7][8] Kent's officers were blunter, telling councillors the £1 billion headline had merely been rounded up from a previously reported £1.3 billion and signalled no real improvement, and that clearing it would need roughly £150 million a year.[9] West Northamptonshire, by contrast, published no quantified backlog at all: members noted its performance report did not even show how many reported potholes were still unallocated, and a proposal to log road condition as a formal strategic risk was only referred up to the leadership team.[10][11]
Derbyshire framed its new residential-roads resurfacing money as recycled Reform savings, saying its re-tendered highways contract came in under estimate and the difference was reinvested.[3][12] Nottinghamshire instead borrowed to top up its capital programme, while Lancashire drew on its own budget alongside the DfT grant and Lincolnshire ring-fenced a dedicated fund aimed squarely at drainage and potholes.[4][5][13] Staffordshire tied its highways investment to service efficiencies and a new delivery model, and reported filling an average of 845 potholes a week, about 5 per cent above its five-year average.[14][15] Leicestershire funded no fresh carriageway line of its own but reallocated capital between schemes and pointed to £22 million of extra highways and transport grant received since its February 2025 strategy.[16]
In Lincolnshire the administration pressed ahead with its own new highways fund even as it voted down a Conservative bid to move a further £10 million from reserves into maintenance.[13][17] West Northamptonshire's leader blamed forces largely outside the budget debate, citing a Department for Transport red rating on the county's highways and a large share of highways funding being diverted to SEND home-to-school transport.[18] Kent's defeated amendment would have funded its pothole top-up by cutting political-assistant posts and member allowances.[19] Warwickshire alone recorded no quantified 2026/27 increase in its published minutes, only a general commitment to resurfacing and pothole repairs, while West Northamptonshire held its capital-programme detail in unpublished appendices, so genuine coverage gaps sit alongside the clear negatives.[20][21]
“Regarding the Council’s ambition for the highway budget, officers confirmed the Council’s intention was to match or exceed current funding levels.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“Officers noted the deficit in funding allocated to drainage assets, explaining the issue of highway asset depreciation and backlog was a national issue.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“there were 2,760 miles of roads in Nottinghamshire which had an estimated replacement value of £10bln.” Document, 25 March 2026 ↗
“It was noted that to address the backlog in maintenance work across England, a total budget of £17bn had been estimated” Document, 6 November 2025 ↗
“This has resulted in works coming in underestimate and then reinvested - such as in our new £3m member led program. I am confident that these efficiencies have been achieved in this financial year, under this administration.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“4. PHASE 2 – HIGHWAYS CAPITAL AND REVENUE PROGRAMMES RESOLVED 2026/013 1) That the following programmes be approved for delivery (subject to the provisions set out in paragraphs 63, 64 and 67 of the report): a. the proposed additional Council Capital Maintenance Programme” Document, 11 June 2026 ↗
“2) That, subject to the support of the Corporate Asset Management Group, the Transport and Environment Portfolio Capital Programme be varied by £15m to reflect the additional investment in the Highways Improvement Programme funded from borrowing.” Document, 11 June 2026 ↗
“The proposed apportionment of the 2026/27 Department for Transport Highway Maintenance funding grant of £48.526m and the additional £18.474m provided in the budget, as detailed in the report and at Appendices 'A' and 'B' of the report, be approved” Minutes, 5 March 2026 ↗
“These arrangements were supported by Department for Transport funding, including funding allocated through the local pothole plan.” Minutes, 26 March 2026 ↗
“It's actually a backlog of 17,000 potholes. We've now filled in 45,000 potholes, which is 10,000 potholes more than the previous year-on-year comparison.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“Labour members seem to extensively be quoting a 100,000 pothole backlog in their election literature. That is factually incorrect and, as I can only presume it’s based on the RAC report from 2021, I’m happy to highlight in that instance too, that 100,000 is the number of potholes we’d filled that year – not the backlog.” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“an indicative annual investment of approximately £150 million would be required to address the backlog.” Minutes, 7 July 2026 ↗
“it was clarified that the £1 billion figure had been rounded for simplicity and did not indicate a significant improvement from the previously reported total of £1.3 billion.” Minutes, 7 July 2026 ↗
“Pothole reporting was required. It was noted the report did not show how quickly potholes were reported or how many remain unallocated.” Minutes, 10 March 2026 ↗
“In response to how quickly potholes were fixed, it was explained that repair times were measured from when KIER received the job.” Minutes, 10 March 2026 ↗
“Could an infrastructure-related risk be added, covering areas such as potholes and the general condition of roads?” Minutes, 11 March 2026 ↗
“The suggestion of adding an infrastructure risk would be taken to the leadership team.” Minutes, 11 March 2026 ↗
“We've already delivered nearly £52m this year of that capital program and that does include A and B roads. We've also delivered £3m additional funding made through reform savings to residential roads as well.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“It was also noted that paragraph 3.6 of the Update proposed the creation of two new reserves, to provide a £0.5m Community Fund to provide funding for local community projects and a £4m Highway Improvement Fund to focus additional funding to target drainage issues and potholes on the highway.” Minutes, 3 February 2026 ↗
“Members welcomed the £0.5m Community Fund which would enable local members to bring forward local projects and the additional £4m to tackle drainage issues and potholes.” Minutes, 3 February 2026 ↗
“£15m into highways, supported by service efficiencies and a new delivery model which has enabled timely repairs of all high-risk defects” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
“we have fixed 845 potholes a week on average” Minutes, 20 May 2026 ↗
“we’ve invested an extra £15 million to work on so-called ‘low priority’ defects” Minutes, 20 May 2026 ↗
“shift the decades backlog that was left for us” Minutes, 20 May 2026 ↗
“An update was also provided on the additional £22m highways and transport related funding awarded to the County Council since the current Medium Term Financial Strategy was approved by the Council in February 2025.” Minutes, 15 July 2025 ↗
“Reallocation of funding from the advanced design programme to the North and East Melton Mowbray Distributor Road (NEMMDR)” Minutes, 15 July 2025 ↗
“the Department for Transport’s additional maintenance grant” Minutes, 15 July 2025 ↗
“1. £10 million is to be transferred from the Volatility Reserve to the Highways Maintenance budget for 2026/27. 2. Expenditure focuses on permanent repairs and preventative maintenance.” Minutes, 20 February 2026 ↗
“a recorded vote was taken on the fifth amendment by the Conservative Group. Upon being put to the vote the amendment fell.” Minutes, 20 February 2026 ↗
“Department for Transport “red” rating on highways” Minutes, 19 January 2026 ↗
“a significant portion of highways funding was allocated to SEND transport, which limited the funds available for road repairs.” Minutes, 19 January 2026 ↗
“This amendment proposes an increase to the Highways Asset Maintenance Fund, with the additional £180k specifically allocated for pothole repairs across the county.” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
“Abstain (1) Mrs M Fothergill. Amendment lost.” Minutes, 12 February 2026 ↗
“emphasised continued commitment to road safety, resurfacing and pothole repairs” Minutes, 5 February 2026 ↗
“Significant funding allocated to highways maintenance; clarity was requested about how this money would be spent and whether it represented effective use of resources.” Minutes, 16 February 2026 ↗