Source
Department for Transport — Local road maintenance ratings 2025 to 2026
amberOverall|amber Conditionamber Spendamber Best Practice
Rutland: one in five village roads in RED — five years running
England's smallest historic county maintains just 520 kilometres of road — yet Rutland's own surveys place 19–20% of unclassified routes in RED condition every year since 2020. All four DfT 2025/26 scorecards are AMBER, pothole fills are up 64% in five years, and reactive maintenance swallowed 27% of highway spend in 2024/25.
19% → 20%
U-road RED share — flat for five years
On 222km of village and estate roads — roughly 44km where maintenance should be considered — the proportion in RED barely moved while pothole repairs climbed from 1,057 to 1,737 a year.
A small network with a large replacement bill
Rutland's own transparency report — network scale, asset value and what the council is responsible for
520km
Total adopted roads
Plus 193km footways and 320km public rights of way
£680m
Gross replacement cost
Council's largest physical asset
0.64%
Of asset value spent on maintenance
2024/25 — £3.83m against £601.7m GRC
| Road class | Length | Share of network | Survey method |
|---|---|---|---|
| A roads | 77km | 14.8% | SCANNER (annual) |
| B and C roads | 221km | 42.5% | SCANNER (annual) |
| U roads | 222km | 42.7% | GAIST video (annual) |
| Total | 520km | 100% | A1 managed by National Highways |
“It would cost the council well over half a billion pounds (£680million) to replace every paved road and footpath in Rutland.”
— Rutland County Council — Highways Maintenance Transparency Report
What the condition data shows
Five years of SCANNER and GAIST survey data from Rutland's own transparency report
A-roads (77km): amber share peaked in 2023
| Year | Red | Amber | Green |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 1% | 17% | 82% |
| 2021 | 1% | 17% | 82% |
| 2022 | 2% | 20% | 78% |
| 2023 | 3% | 27% | 70% |
| 2024 | 2% | 21% | 77% |
A-road amber condition jumped from 17% to 27% in 2023 before easing to 21% in 2024. The council's 2024/25 KPI target was 74% of A-roads in good condition; the result was 76.8% — above target, but the 2023 spike shows principal routes are not immune to deterioration.
B and C roads (221km): a blind year in 2022
| Year | Red | Amber | Green |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 3% | 25% | 72% |
| 2021 | 3% | 18% | 79% |
| 2022 | No data — instrument malfunction | ||
| 2023 | 4% | 22% | 74% |
| 2024 | 3% | 22% | 75% |
RED B/C roads hit 4% in 2023 — the highest in five years. Combined amber and red, roughly a quarter of classified local roads needed or would soon need maintenance at the last two comparable surveys.
U-roads (222km): stuck at one in five RED
| Year | U-roads in RED condition |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 19% |
| 2021 | 19% |
| 2022 | 19% |
| 2023 | 19% |
| 2024 | 20% |
Rutland surveys all unclassified roads annually with a vehicle-mounted 360° camera (GAIST). Images are graded 1–5, then refactored into RED, amber and green to align with SCANNER categories.
The council states results from the two survey types are not directly comparable, and that the video survey “will generally identify more defects than SCANNER” — yet RED U-roads have barely shifted in five years.
What 20% RED means on the ground
20% of 222km is roughly 44km of village, estate and rural lanes where the council's own survey says maintenance should be considered — a persistent figure, not a one-off blip.
“Subject to funding, we're aiming to maintain the condition of the network of carriageways at current levels.”
— Rutland County Council — Condition of Local Roads
7,046 pothole fills in five years
Rising reactive workload on England's smallest county highway network
| Year | Potholes filled | Change on prior year |
|---|---|---|
| 2020/21 | 1,057 | — |
| 2021/22 | 1,160 | +10% |
| 2022/23 | 1,454 | +25% |
| 2023/24 | 1,638 | +13% |
| 2024/25 | 1,737 | +6% |
| Five-year total | 7,046 | +64% since 2020/21 |
£134,000 on potholes alone
In 2024/25 Rutland fixed 1,737 potholes at a combined cost of slightly under £134,000 — almost 13% of the reactive maintenance budget that year. The council describes potholes as “the most common maintenance issue reported to us.”
Nearly five fills a day
Averaged over 2024/25, Rutland filled roughly 4.8 potholes every day on a 520km network. On a per-kilometre basis, that is a higher defect rate than many larger counties — small network, steady reactive pressure.
“Potholes are the most common maintenance issue reported to us. In 2024 to 2025 we fixed 1737 potholes at a combined cost of slightly under £134,000, which was almost 13% of our budget for reactive maintenance that year.”
— Rutland County Council — Highways Maintenance Spending Figures
Spend: above allocation, yet all AMBER
Capital, revenue and the shift from prevention to reaction — from Rutland's spending tables
| Year | DfT capital (£,000s) | Capital spend (£,000s) | Revenue spend (£,000s) | Preventative | Reactive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020/21 | £3,150 | £3,694 | £698 | 85% | 15% |
| 2021/22 | £2,381 | £2,727 | £793 | 78% | 22% |
| 2022/23 | £2,381 | £2,940 | £875 | 78% | 22% |
| 2023/24 | £2,804 | £3,322 | £821 | 80% | 20% |
| 2024/25 | £2,381 | £2,857 | £1,044 | 73% | 27% |
| 2025/26 (projected) | £3,770 | £3,770 | £732 | 86% | 14% |
The reactive share nearly doubled
27%
Reactive share in 2024/25
15%
Reactive share in 2020/21
£3.83m
Total maintenance spend 2024/25
Rutland routinely spends more capital than the DfT allocates — yet every 2025/26 scorecard is AMBER. For claim purposes, the telling trend is reactive maintenance climbing to over a quarter of total spend while U-road RED condition holds at one in five.
Best practice AMBER — what the council publishes
Asset management, benchmarking and the gap between targets and public satisfaction
What Rutland does well
- ✓ Published Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan, Resilient Network Plan and Winter Service Policy
- ✓ Annual SCANNER surveys on classified roads; annual GAIST survey on all U-roads
- ✓ NHT customer survey — top quartile nationally in fourth year of participation (2024)
- ✓ ALARM survey and University of Leeds NHT CQC benchmarking
- ✓ B-road good-condition KPI at 83.1% — above the 72% target in 2024/25
Where the data shows strain
- ✗ Carriageway satisfaction 31.0% — below the 32.0% KPI target
- ✗ Drainage satisfaction 35.0% — below the 37.0% target
- ✗ A-road SCRIM red band 3.3% — above the 2.0% KPI target
- ✗ Category 2 jobs on-time 97.2% — fractionally below the 97.5% target
- ✗ Maintenance spend just 0.59–0.66% of gross replacement cost annually
“In our fourth year participating in the survey (2024) we're still placed in the top quartile nationally.”
— Rutland County Council — Annex B: Incentive Element Questions
Claiming against an all-AMBER council
Honest assessment: Rutland runs a documented system — here is how that shapes your claim
What works in the council's favour
- ✓ Documented asset management plan and annual condition surveys on all road classes
- ✓ Annual U-road GAIST survey — no alternate-year blind spot
- ✓ Capital spend exceeds DfT allocation in most recent years
- ✓ Top-quartile NHT satisfaction nationally — structured benchmarking culture
- ✓ Small network means fewer roads to monitor — harder to argue systemic neglect at scale
Expect a documented Section 58 defence. Generic template letters will struggle.
What works in yours
- ✗ 19–20% of U-roads in RED for five consecutive years — roughly 44km of known-poor village roads
- ✗ 7,046 pothole fills in five years — defects forming faster than prevention absorbs
- ✗ Reactive spend at 27% in 2024/25 — rising repair burden
- ✗ No B/C SCANNER data in 2022 — inspection gap on 221km of classified roads
- ✗ Carriageway satisfaction below KPI target — public experience diverges from network KPIs
- ✗ Council admits U-road and SCANNER survey results are not directly comparable
The winning strategy here is specificity
Against a council with published asset management and annual surveys, your claim lives or dies on the specific defect:
- • Prior reports of the same pothole (FixMyStreet, council reports) — proof of actual notice
- • Photos showing the defect's size, depth and visible age (weathered edges, previous patching)
- • Road class — on a U-road, cite the five-year 19–20% RED record for that network segment
- • Timing — if your incident fell in 2022/23 on a B or C road, raise the SCANNER instrument malfunction gap
- • Drainage context — satisfaction with drainage missed target at 35% vs 37%
Mac builds exactly this case: he searches for prior reports, assesses your photo evidence, and cites Rutland's own transparency data where it helps you.
Report the pothole to Rutland first
Rutland's highway maintenance guidance classifies immediate dangers as emergencies. For non-emergency defects, reporting through FixMyStreet or MyAccount creates a dated record — useful evidence if the pothole was reported before your incident, or if the council failed to repair it within a reasonable time.
Report a pothole to Rutland County CouncilUse FixMyStreet or MyAccount via the council's reporting page. For emergencies during office hours call 01572 722 577; out of hours call Harborough Lifeline on 01858 464 499. Keep your reference number.
Hit a pothole in Rutland?
A documented council demands a documented claim. £35 for a professional claim pack.
DIY claim
- • Submit photos and invoices
- • Use generic template letter
- • No five-year U-road RED record cited
- • No 2022 B/C survey gap argued
- • No prior-report search
Professional claim pack
- ✅ 19–20% U-road RED over five years documented
- ✅ 7,046 pothole fills and 27% reactive spend cited
- ✅ 2022 B/C SCANNER gap argued where relevant
- ✅ Prior reports searched and attached
- ✅ Section 58 rebuttal tailored to Rutland
No percentage fees. You keep 100% of any compensation.
Frequently asked questions
Rutland has AMBER on every DfT scorecard — can I still claim?
Yes. An AMBER overall rating does not block claims. Section 58 turns on whether the specific defect that damaged your vehicle was reasonably inspected and repaired in time — not on aggregate scorecard colours. Rutland's own data shows 19–20% of unclassified roads in RED condition for five consecutive years, pothole fills rising 64% since 2020/21, and reactive maintenance climbing to 27% of spend in 2024/25.
What if my pothole was on a village or residential road?
Unclassified roads make up 222km — 43% of Rutland's 520km adopted network. The council's annual GAIST video survey has placed 19% of U-roads in RED every year from 2020 to 2023, rising to 20% in 2024. That is roughly 44km of village and estate routes where maintenance should be considered.
Does the missing 2022 B/C road survey weaken my claim?
It can help if your incident was on a B or C road in 2022/23. Rutland states there is no B/C SCANNER data for 2022 due to an instrument malfunction during the survey. For that financial year, the council had no published network-level condition record for 221km of classified local roads.
Rutland filled 1,737 potholes in 2024/25 — does that mean the roads are fixed?
No. Pothole fills have risen every year for five years to 1,737 in 2024/25 — a total of 7,046 fills. The council states potholes are the most common maintenance issue reported, and those 1,737 repairs cost slightly under £134,000 — almost 13% of the reactive maintenance budget that year.
Rutland spends above its DfT allocation — why is Spend still AMBER?
In 2024/25 Rutland spent £2.857m capital against a £2.381m DfT allocation. Yet the DfT Spend scorecard is AMBER — the rating reflects national benchmarking, not just whether spend exceeds allocation. For your claim, the more relevant figure is reactive maintenance rising from 15% of spend in 2020/21 to 27% in 2024/25.
Who maintains the A1 through Rutland?
Rutland County Council is not responsible for the A1 and its slip roads — those are managed by National Highways. Rutland maintains 77km of other A-roads, 221km of B/C roads and 222km of unclassified roads. Check the National Street Gazetteer for responsibility before claiming.
Data sources: Department for Transport — Local Road Maintenance Ratings 2025 to 2026 | Rutland County Council Highways Maintenance Transparency Report (2025). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Reusable evidence record
Council rating evidence and provenance
Rating period: 2025-2026 · Reviewed 19 July 2026
Observed DfT fact
Overall AMBER; condition AMBER; spend AMBER; best practice AMBER.
Cautious interpretation
This is network-level context. The rating does not determine liability for a particular incident or establish what was known about a specific defect.
Correction status: No correction recorded.