Agenda item

1.    The report was introduced by Peter Osborne, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, who updated the Committee on the progress of KCC’s Winter Service up to the end of January 2026 and outlined pressures experienced during the most recent winter period and lessons learned. He also highlighted adequacy of resources and capacity, clarity on the definition and responsibilities around street cleanings, pothole maintenance, future planning and long- term resilience.

2.    Following questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Simon Jones, Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport (GET) confirmed that the data showed an increasing number of surface defects, supporting perceptions of worsening pothole conditions linked to recent winters, unusual weather, and the overall condition of the highway network.

b)    Andrew Loosemore, Interim Director of Highways and Transport, explained that while January typically saw a spike in surface defect reports, February experienced an unprecedented increase due to cumulative severe winter conditions. Although this created a significant pressure and backlog, report levels reduced in March and recovery work was continuing.

c)    Mr Jones highlighted the existing scheme through which Parish Councils could invest their own funding into Highway Improvement Plans. Parishes that wished to accelerate local repairs were also advised to engage with the Highway Improvement team, who could liaise with operations as appropriate.

d)    Mr Jones explained that it was not possible to set a fixed timescale for when surface defects would reach intervention levels, as deterioration rates varied and were managed through a routine inspection regime. Mr Loosemore further confirmed that repairs were prioritised using a risk- based approach in line with the national Code of Practice for Well Managed Highways, with defects allocated to timed repair categories. Lower- risk issues were addressed through planned maintenance and asset management programmes.

e)    Richard Emmett, Head of Highways (Operations), explained that primary salting routes were planned to capacity and could not currently be expanded. However, additional “snow routes” may be deployed during severe weather once primary routes were complete, and in some cases single access routes to villages had been added. Members could raise requests through their Local Highway Managers, and post- season reviews of routes were undertaken over the summer months.

f)     Mr Jones advised that weather forecasting services were kept under regular review and confirmed that the Council had recently starting using Met Office forecasting. Alongside this, operational experience and innovations under the new contract were expected to improve preparedness for future extreme weather at no extra cost to the Council. Mr Emmett outlined these potential innovations, including the use of vehicle telematics to enable live tracking of gritting vehicles. They also included recognising pressures caused by the same staff covering both winter operations and pothole repairs, with work underway to explore designated crews to better manage emergencies and reduce operational strain.

g)    Mr Loosemore confirmed that the use of spray markings to identify temporary pothole repairs had been explored previously, but practical issues and potential confusion with utility markings meant this did not progress. The issue had recently been revisited, and it was acknowledged that there was a need to improve public understanding, with further consideration and a potential update to be provided outside the Committee.

h)    Mr Loosemore confirmed that there was no evidence to suggest that salting caused roads to deteriorate more quickly. The quantities of salt used were minimal and had little impact on road surfaces, with deterioration primarily caused by freeze- thaw cycles, prolonged rainfall and the age of the roads.

i)     Mr Loosemore outlined that the Highways Term Maintenance contract covered a wide range of services beyond pothole repairs, including highways management, winter service and drainage. Sub- contracting was used to manage peaks and troughs in demand and to provide specialist services, as it would be unaffordable for the contractor to retain sufficient core staff to meet maximum demand at all times. In addition, the Council also used the contract to engage directly with local Small and Medium- sized Enterprises (SMEs) to provide added resilience when required. Mr Jones also identified that the new contract separated fixed overhead costs from operational costs, providing transparency and ensuring contractors did not profit from increased subcontracting or additional work.

j)     It was explained that decisions on patching versus resurfacing were based on balancing budgets, demand, available resources and the need for durable repairs. Inspectors assessing defects were required to choose the most appropriate and cost- effective intervention, which could involve individual repairs, larger patches or resurfacing. Whilst resurfacing could be more sustainable, it was not always feasible due to demand and budget constraints.

k)    Mr Jones explained that for larger developments, pre? and post?works inspections were undertaken to help identify potential damage and seek contributions where possible, although this could be challenging, particularly with smaller developers. Discussions were ongoing with major developers, including the use of commuted sums for future maintenance, but a balance needed to be struck where new adopted roads may reduce long?term maintenance needs.

l)     Mr Loosemore advised that a fixed timescale for permanent repairs could not be given as once temporary repairs had made defects safe, the permanent repairs were programmed as part of the wider works programme. The timing depended on priorities and whether further planned works were scheduled for the road, which could be months or years later.

m)  Mr Osborne confirmed that arrangements were in place with lower- tier authorities’ street cleansing teams to clear detritus from the Highway to help manage surface water flooding.

n)    Mr Emmett explained that salting routes were based on the Resilient Kent Network, focusing on A and B roads and other strategic routes that provided key access to towns and villages. The criteria was established to ensure resources were targeted where they were most reasonably practicable during severe weather, given limited capacity. While requests from Members and the public were considered, not all roads could be included, and the strategic network provided the necessary boundaries for route selection.

o)    Mr Emmett stated that the use of farmers to assist with rural road maintenance was reviewed annually, alongside their rates. However, the scheme was becoming more challenging to sustain as long- standing participants had retired and changes in farming practices had reduced the availability of suitable personnel.

p)    A Member highlighted the value of engaging with the Highway Improvement Plan and thanked officers for their work.

3.    The Chairman summarised the discussion and highlighted the following actions for further consideration: potential innovations discussed by Members, the provision of a publicly available document setting out salting routes and criteria for their selection and clearer guidance for Members on how routes may be reviewed. The Chairman also reiterated the importance of Parishes engaging with Highways officers and concluded by recognising the unprecedented challenges faced by the road network. The Chairman proposed the Scrutiny Committee note the details of the report and the actions being taken regarding KCC’s ongoing winter service and highways repairs. This was agreed by the Committee.

4.    RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the details of the report and the actions being taken regarding KCC’s ongoing winter service and highway repairs.