Agenda item

The Committee has requested a report providing an overview of pothole repairs and superusers.

 

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Sean Rooney, Head of Service – Highway Maintenance and Road Safety, have been invited to present the report.  The Committee has also invited Richard Lovewell, Business Director for MGroup Highways, Andrew Vidovic, Team Leader – Inspections, Nigel Clark, Team Leader – Volunteer Coordination, and Paul Wilson, Operational Manager (Operations).

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

 

The Committee’s attention is drawn to the report of the Performance and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Fix My Street which was submitted to Cabinet on 27 January 2026: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s80451/FixMyStreet.pdf

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Sean Rooney, Head of Service – Highway Maintenance and Road Safety, were invited to present a report providing an overview of pothole repairs and superusers.

 

The Committee also invited Richard Lovewell, Business Director for MGroup Highways, Andrew Vidovic, Team Leader – Inspections, Nigel Clark, Team Leader – Volunteer Coordination, Paul Wilson, Operational Manager (Operations), Dale Stevens, Insurance Manager, Steven Fitzgerald, Operational Manager (Highways Maintenance.

 

The Committee NOTED the report of the Performance and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on FixMyStreet, submitted to Cabinet on 27 January 2026.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport Management introduced the item and set out a strategic overview of the position on highway defects. He emphasised the standards expected of the contractor, MGroup, including responsibility for non‑chargeable defects, and noted that although the transition to the new contract had been successful, it was not free of imperfections. The report deliberately presented an unvarnished picture of outstanding repairs; the date on the underlying data had been corrected for accuracy. He stressed that he and the team had been leading a process of continuous improvement and that the timing of the report was appropriate given the unprecedented operational challenges seen locally and nationally.

 

The Head of Service – Highway Maintenance and Road Safety followed by confirming the report’s purpose as a candid overview rather than a claim of perfection. He highlighted collaborative work with MGroup to pinpoint and address areas for improvement, describing an intelligence‑led, data‑rich approach to prioritising a significant volume of defects. He also paid tribute to the Superusers volunteer scheme, with around 230 volunteers had been signed up, though activity varied seasonally, and reiterated the service’s commitment to transparency and continual improvement.

 

Members of the Committee expressed strong concern on behalf of residents about recurring potholes, the perceived inadequacy of some repairs, and a compensation process seen as complex and slow. They felt a recent Council press release attributing problems to winter conditions failed to acknowledge that similar issues recurred annually and that the current backlog was unacceptable.

 

Officers recognised the frustration and set out how the service had been moving to an asset‑management approach to break the cycle of winter‑driven spikes: larger and more durable structural patches, an expanded surface‑dressing and resurfacing programme, and greater investment in drainage to prevent water‑related failures. They also described improved forward planning, including earlier publication of multi‑year programmes so contractors could secure resources in advance. At the same time, they cautioned that resource constraints meant deterioration could not be eliminated entirely.

 

Councillors sought explanation for the contrast between stronger performance reported in 2023/24 and the sharp rise in potholes during 2024/25. Officers explained that the 2023/24 figures reflected the very large number of defects generated by a wet and cold winter, which allowed crews to plan and respond to a predictable, gradually rising pattern. In 2024/25, by contrast, there had been an unexpected and rapid 82% increase in reported defects in January alone, which placed severe strain on resources and made the picture appear markedly worse. Officers stressed that these variations primarily evidenced the impact of weather patterns rather than any decline in contractor performance.

 

Further questions were raised as to why winter preparations had not started earlier given the early‑2025 surge. Officers said winter planning had been in place based on multi‑year trends, but the specific combination of prolonged freezing temperatures and heavy rainfall that triggered the January spike could not reasonably have been predicted. They added that resources were constrained: the same crews deployed on preventative work were also needed for gritting, and the service did not hold spare capacity in reserve. Learning had been built in for future seasons, including earlier contractor mobilisation and better integration of drainage, asset‑management data and risk‑based prioritisation.

 

The Director of Environment and Highways reflected on the distinction between budgets for planned maintenance and the separate programme for defect repairs. He acknowledged the worsening condition of parts of the network and the growing volume of work, exacerbated by extreme weather. He accepted that the Council could have reacted more quickly to the most recent spike and identified this as a lesson learned. Saw‑cut permanent repairs had become the preferred approach and were now used for most defects, though crews faced operational challenges in persistent wet and cold conditions.

 

Councillors raised concerns about oversight of temporary repairs in light of sweep‑and‑fill patches that failed within hours or days. Officers said both MGroup and the Council carried out checks: MGroup supervisors and supply‑chain supervisors reviewed daily completions, including before‑and‑after photos, while the Council undertook independent quality inspections, with about 1,700–1,800 since the start of the new contract. Early failures remained MGroup’s liability and defects were returned for permanent repair.

 

Officers explained that weather was the principal cause of early failure, with rain and freeze‑thaw cycles preventing proper bonding, particularly on waterlogged or deteriorated surfaces. Temporary sweep‑and‑fill treatments were used only for immediate safety where full traffic management could not be arranged and were never intended to be durable; such cases were recorded for follow‑up permanent works.

 

Recognising public dissatisfaction, officers accepted that communication with residents had not been strong enough. Work had begun with the Council’s communications team to provide clearer, more regular updates, including weekly social‑media messaging and plainer explanations of winter pressures and scheduling constraints. A public‑facing statistics dashboard had been devised to show defects reported and repaired, workforce deployment, and progress on backlogs, supporting both residents and Councillors in handling enquiries.

 

Councillors emphasised the importance of local knowledge in prioritising works, noting that risk‑based models, FixMyStreet data and inspection results did not always capture lived realities such as rural pinch points, popular cut‑throughs or bus‑route stress. Officers acknowledged this and committed to clearer escalation routes, improved locality‑based engagement and more consistent member responses via the Member Portal. They reiterated that the service would strengthen how local intelligence was combined with asset‑management data to inform prioritisation.

 

Concern was expressed about the difficulty of contacting the Highways service during urgent incidents. The existing routes, FixMyStreet, the Member Portal, engagement Officers and out‑of‑hours lines, were described as confusing and sometimes ineffective. Officers accepted this and explained that frontline staff had been under severe pressure due to the surge in defects. The Head of Highways Maintenance said Councillors could contact him directly if necessary and committed to working with the Customer Service Centre to ensure a reliable escalation route to someone empowered to act on urgent matters.

 

The Insurance Manager highlighted a significant rise in pothole claims, with 903 received in January alone, exceeding previous annual averages and straining both investigation and administration. Additional staff were allocated, but response delays persisted. The Operational Manager noted that many claims required on-site checks by highways staff, further increasing workload amidst high volumes. Councillors requested data on outcomes and costs for these claims; officers explained that only early December cases were being processed, so January results were unavailable. However, for context, the Council had paid around £240,000 for just over 1,900 claims during 2025, illustrating the financial burden of pothole damage.

 

Councillors also sought clarification on liability in the period between an initial report and a pothole reaching the intervention threshold. Officers explained that liability depended on defect severity, the Council’s inspection regime and adherence to response times. If a road had been inspected within the defined interval and the defect had not met the intervention threshold, the Council would generally not be liable. If a defect had been reported and not repaired within the set timeframe, liability could arise.

 

The importance of photographs when reporting defects was discussed. Many FixMyStreet reports lacked images, slowing assessment and repair. Officers agreed that photographs improved accuracy, and triage process, and confirmed that FixMyStreet was developing an enhancement to allow a photograph to be uploaded at the start of reporting, with geolocation to place the defect automatically. Better‑quality reports would reduce avoidable site visits and speed network‑wide repairs.

 

It was noted that some FixMyStreet cases appeared to be closed before any visible repair had taken place, damaging public confidence. Officers explained that closures could reflect temporary emergency works or scheduling into a wider programme, which automatically updated the case even though a permanent fix had not yet happened. They committed to improving the workflow and public messaging so residents could see whether a repair was temporary, permanent, or part of a larger scheme.

 

Councillors queried whether utility companies could be fined retrospectively for reinstatements that later failed. Officers explained that under the New Roads and Street Works Act, statutory undertakers - organisations that have a legal right to place, maintain, repair or remove apparatus in the public highway - guaranteed reinstatements for two years. Within that period, the Council could require companies to return and fix defects at their own cost. After two years, responsibility reverted to the Council. Tracking responsibility could be practically challenging where companies had left the area or contractors had changed, but the Council pursued remediation whenever a failed reinstatement within the guarantee period was identified.

 

The Cabinet Member left the meeting at this stage.

 

Councillors then highlighted repeated failures on bus routes, particularly those with heavy or electric buses, where temporary repairs rapidly collapsed. Officers acknowledged the issue and confirmed that, whilst emergency safety treatments were sometimes unavoidable, sweep‑and‑fills were not durable on high‑stress corridors. Such failures remained MGroup’s liability and were escalated to permanent structural repair. Analysis of repeat failures on bus routes was underway, assessing whether alternative materials, larger patches or revised scheduling were needed. Officers confirmed that bus routes were already scored more highly within the asset‑management prioritisation system.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the out‑of‑hours contact system, including a reported instance of an inappropriate response to a Councillor seeking assistance with an emergency hazard. Officers agreed the response was unacceptable and would be investigated. They reiterated that an out‑of‑hours service existed and that serious hazards should be phoned in rather than logged online. The structure, staffing expectations and escalation routes of the service would be reviewed to improve reliability, particularly during severe weather and high‑defect periods.

 

Cllr Ashby left the meeting at this stage.

 

Feedback was then received on the Superuser scheme. One Councillor, also a Superuser, reported a substantial increase in workload, having received 43 additional reports that same morning, but confirmed that officers generally responded quickly and effectively to high‑risk escalations. Officers welcomed this positive feedback and acknowledged opportunities for improved communication. They agreed to explore additional training and support, including refresher material and clearer escalation processes.

 

Cllr McLean left this meeting at this stage.

 

Councillors asked whether more could be done to prevent HGVs using unsuitable C‑roads. Officers acknowledged that heavy vehicles contributed significantly to road deterioration. Enforcement of weight restrictions rested primarily with TVP, but the Council continued working with them through road‑safety partnerships. Officers emphasised that preventative measures, drainage improvements, structural patching and prioritised resurfacing on HGV and bus corridors, were essential and agreed to review additional tools to limit heavy‑vehicle impacts.

 

Questions were raised about whether higher‑specification materials such as graphene‑enhanced mixes could be used universally. Officers explained that various materials and techniques were already used, chosen according to weather, defect characteristics and road type. Results from earlier trials at a Stevenson test site had been absorbed into practice. While permanent repairs were increasingly larger and more robust, using the highest‑specification mix everywhere was not always cost‑effective or technically suitable, especially in winter or for rapid‑response safety works.

 

Councillors sought clarification on inspection routines and Government funding. Officers explained inspections included routine cycles, ad-hoc checks prompted by FixMyStreet reports, and joint quality assurance with MGroup. While inspections followed national practice, increasing capacity would be explored. Government funding was highlighted as vital but insufficient, with only £33 million allocated annually against the £49 million required for network maintenance. Funding remained short-term, limited, or ring-fenced, failing to meet longer-term needs. High defect volumes were linked to extreme weather and historic under-investment, rather than recent local maintenance shortcomings.

 

The Committee AGREED to recommendations under the following headings:

 

• That the Council should improve communications with residents, including clearer updates on ongoing works and challenges.
• That the Council should launch the new public‑facing statistics dashboard to provide visibility of defect volumes and repair progress.
• That the Council should strengthen communication and escalation routes for Councillors, including reviewing the adequacy of the out‑of‑hours service.
• That the Council should increase visibility and clarity of programmed works, supported by earlier publication of multi‑year plans.
• That the Council should improve integration of local knowledge, especially of elected members, into prioritisation of repairs and programmed works.
• That the Council should review the FixMyStreet process, ensuring cases are not closed prematurely and status updates are clearer.
• That the Council should enhance training and support for the Superuser scheme.
• That the Council should review approaches to temporary repairs, including failure patterns on bus routes.
• That the Council should explore further measures to limit the impact of HGVs on vulnerable roads.
• That the Council should consider whether additional inspection capacity is needed and strengthen inspection processes.
• That the Council should continue to embed learning from repair failures, including materials choices and method improvements.
• That the Council should undertake a review of the impact of cars being significantly heavier on average than previously and the resultant pressure on roads.