The Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee met on Monday 14 September 2026 to discuss a range of highway-related matters. Key discussions included the proposed introduction of charges for H-bar markings, the replacement of Langrick Bridge, highway drainage improvements in Aslackby, and performance reports for the highways service and education transport. The committee also reviewed its work programme and received updates on road safety and the Lincolnshire Permit Scheme.

Introduction of Charging for H-Bar Markings

The committee considered a report on the proposed introduction of charges for H-bar markings, which are advisory road markings used to discourage parking outside of driveways. Currently, Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) covers the cost of these markings, amounting to approximately £25,000 per year. The proposal is to introduce a £25 application fee and a £375 installation fee, aiming for full cost recovery.

Several councillors raised concerns about the proposal. Councillor Jane Lesley King questioned the fairness of charging residents again if roadworks later necessitate the removal and reinstallation of H-bars. Councillor Kevin John Clarke asked for a breakdown of the £400 charge, expressing that it seemed high compared to other authorities. Councillor Richard Andrew Wright voiced concerns that an online-only system, without site visits by highway officers, could lead to inappropriate H-bar installations, citing a controversial case in his division. He stated he would vote against the proposal if site visits were removed. Councillor Mrs Charlotte Louise Edwards Vernon proposed an exemption or significant reduction for blue badge holders, arguing the policy could be discriminatory. Councillor Christopher John Reeve sought a guarantee period for the H-bars, concerned about residents having to pay again if roads were resurfaced shortly after installation. Councillor Martin Ian Colin Christopher echoed concerns about affordability and potential community friction if some residents could afford the markings and others could not, and supported an exemption for blue badge holders. Councillor James Bean suggested the policy needed more refinement and that local ward councillors should be consulted. Councillor Thomas Edmund Sneath agreed that a fuller report was needed, covering not just cost but implementation, and that local members should be involved.

In response, Adam Round, Head of Design Services, explained that the charge was for cost recovery and that other local authorities also charged for these markings. He noted that while site visits would not be specific, highway officers conducting general inspections might observe applications. Nicole Hilton, Assistant Director – Communities and Deputy Director – Place, clarified that H-bars are advisory and not legally enforceable. Councillor Wright proposed that the policy be taken away for further consideration and brought back to the committee with more detail. This was seconded by Councillor Sneath, and the committee agreed to defer the decision pending a more detailed report.

DfT Structures Fund Submission – Replacement of Langrick Bridge

The committee reviewed a report concerning a submission to the Department for Transport (DfT) Structures Fund for the replacement of Langrick Bridge. The bridge, built in 1903, carries the B1192 over the River Witham north-west of Boston. It currently has permanent traffic light control and single-lane traffic due to a failed structural assessment in the 1990s, and suffers from poor highway alignment and increasing maintenance costs. The DfT Structures Fund offers £1 billion for local highway authorities to target deteriorating structures. LCC is seeking retrospective approval for a bid submission and, if successful, authorisation to commit £1.5 million from its Highways Maintenance Capital Budget towards the estimated £26.23 million scheme cost.

Councillor Christopher John Reeve asked if the costs included the removal of the old bridge and what the diversion route mileage would be if the bridge closed. Ian Booth, Principal Engineer (Structures), confirmed that removal costs were included and that the diversion route would be approximately 15 miles through Boston. Councillor Mrs Charlotte Louise Edwards Vernon inquired about other schemes considered and why Langrick Bridge was chosen, as well as the relocation of assets and potential cost overruns beyond the £1.5 million commitment. Mr Booth explained that the scheme met eligibility criteria for the DfT fund, and that an optimism bias had been applied to the indicative costs, but LCC would be bound to fund any shortfall. Councillor Martin Ian Colin Christopher asked about cycle and pedestrian provisions, noting the current bridge is primarily for cars. Mr Booth confirmed that a national cycle route crosses the bridge and that improvements would be incorporated, with support from Sustrans. Councillor Richard Andrew Wright questioned the extent of corrosion and the fallback position if funding was not secured. Mr Booth stated that if the bid was unsuccessful, a maintenance scheme would be pursued, but further weight restrictions or closure could be necessary if issues were not addressed. Councillor Thomas Edmund Sneath expressed strong support for the £1.5 million contribution, calling it an absolute let's go for it opportunity, and thanked officers for their initiative. He also inquired if the old bridge could be utilised for pedestrians or cyclists. Mr Booth advised against this, stating removal would eliminate future maintenance liabilities. The committee agreed to submit its comments to the Executive for consideration.

Aslackby Highway Drainage Improvement Scheme

The committee considered a report on the Aslackby Highway Drainage Improvement Scheme, which aims to address the structural decline of drains in Temple Road, Avaland Way, and part of Kirkby Underwood Road, and improve the resilience of the system. The scheme also includes capturing and managing runoff from the A15 that currently enters the village. Aslackby has experienced flooding four times between 2013 and 2025, primarily caused by the River Ave overtopping its banks. The existing highway drainage system is in poor structural condition, with defects rated from grade 3 to 5, indicating a risk of collapse.

Councillor Reeve, while supporting the scheme, questioned where the surface water would ultimately be drained to, given that the River Ave is the primary cause of property flooding. Nathan Whitfield, Principal Design Engineer for Drainage, explained that while the highway system discharges into the river, and drainage becomes less effective during floods, the scheme would not exacerbate the issue and would manage runoff more effectively, particularly by diverting A15 runoff. Councillor Kevin John Clarke echoed this concern, asking if the scheme was a closed loop of water going into the river and then back into the village. Mr Whitfield clarified that while some discharges are downstream, the scheme would not worsen the situation and that the diversion of A15 runoff was an improvement. Councillor Sneath moved that the committee consider and scrutinise the report and its recommendations to the Executive Councillors.

Highways Performance Report, Year 7 Quarter 1 (1 April to 30 June 2026)

Jonathan Evans, Head of Highways Client, presented the Highways Performance Report for the first quarter of Year 7. Overall alliance performance was reported at 94.5%, with the Client score at 93% and the Highway Works Contract at 84%. The Professional Services Contract score slightly decreased to 87.18%, and the new Traffic Signals Contract with Swarco scored 85.5%.

A key issue highlighted was that Performance Indicator 3 for the Highway Works Contract (reactive works completed within timescales) had fallen below the minimum performance threshold due to an extreme volume of demand in Quarter 1. However, actions taken to increase resources had significantly reduced the backlog. Mr Evans also noted rising inflation within the construction sector, impacting the cost of services.

Councillor Christopher John Reeve raised concerns about the accuracy of repairs, asking if the council was paying twice for the same repairs. Mr Evans assured that contractors take before and after photos and that the volume of inspected and failed repairs was relatively low, but agreed to provide more data on this. Councillor Mrs Charlotte Louise Edwards Vernon expressed concern about complaints regarding behaviour and conduct, and noted an increase in complaints compared to the same period last year. Mr Evans stated that behaviour and conduct complaints were investigated thoroughly and that the 9% figure likely represented complaints that were not upheld. Nicole Hilton, Assistant Director – Communities and Deputy Director – Place, suggested that the rise in complaints nationally might be linked to the accessibility of AI for drafting them. Councillor Reeve also raised concerns about closures and diversions, suggesting apathy from the public due to confusing diversions. Mr Evans acknowledged this and outlined plans for improved communication, including targeted social media and letter drops. Councillor Vernon questioned the table on page 80 regarding workstream plans and how schemes were prioritised. Mr Evans explained the process of presenting the forward program to contractors for efficiency planning. Councillor Sneath asked about the monitoring of behaviour towards contractors and employees, and whether figures on this could be shared. Mr Evans confirmed this was a growing issue in the industry and that LCC was working with Lincolnshire Police on proactive communications. Councillor Kevin John Clarke inquired about the roles of the nine apprentices mentioned and the council's input on contractor apprentice numbers. Mr Evans explained that contractors commit to added value in their bids and that the council encourages apprenticeships. Councillor Mrs Charlotte Louise Edwards Vernon questioned the change in quality statement 5 for the Professional Services Contract, suggesting it might lessen the offering of apprenticeships. Mr Evans clarified that the wording was broadened to include graduates and placements, but agreed to refine the wording. The committee agreed to consider and comment on the performance report.

Scrutiny Committee Performance Framework 2026-27 Quarter 1: Education Transport and Road Safety

Mike Reed, Head of Transport, and Steve Batchelor, Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership Manager, presented the performance framework for Education Transport and Road Safety. For Education Transport, PI 198 (applications approved) was 69.7%, PI 199 (time taken for eligibility decisions) averaged 1.55 days, and PI 200 (single occupancy travel) was 10.1%. A significant concern was the rising number of SEND cases, which accounted for 13.2% of pupils but 48% of transport costs.

Councillor Christopher John Reeve asked Steve Batchelor about road safety data, specifically the number of children killed or seriously injured. Mr Batchelor reported 100 people killed or seriously injured overall in the period, with 4 children in that category, and noted that while numbers were low, zero was the target. He also mentioned revamping the education curriculum and piloting an online resource package. Councillor Christopher expressed thanks for the team's work on individual cases and highlighted the potential for active travel to reduce transport needs, suggesting better integration between highway and environmental teams. Councillor James Bean asked if e-scooter and e-bike accidents were broken down in the statistics. Mr Batchelor stated this was not in the quarterly update but acknowledged the growing prevalence and safety challenges of e-scooters and e-bikes, mentioning police days of action and educational initiatives. Councillor Richard Andrew Wright raised concerns about communication regarding transport eligibility, citing a case where a student was told to walk down the A15. Mr Reed agreed to review the case and explore alternative solutions. Councillor Mrs Charlotte Louise Edwards Vernon echoed concerns about dark, unlit roads for bus pick-ups and the sustainability of SEND transport costs. She also requested that homeschooled children be included in road safety education. Councillor Thomas Edmund Sneath asked about a potential IT system to instantly determine school eligibility and transport availability. Mr Reed confirmed this was an exciting opportunity being discussed with IT colleagues, but would require significant development and financing. Nicole Hilton, Assistant Director – Communities and Deputy Director – Place, clarified that it is parents' responsibility to get their child to school, not the local authority's, though the authority assists where eligible. Councillor Christopher argued for the importance of safe walking and cycling routes to build parental confidence. Councillor Bean suggested exploring schemes to reduce traffic around schools. Councillor Clarke questioned why schools were not treated like supermarkets, where parking is not directed around the corner. The committee noted the points raised and thanked the officers.

Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee Work Programme

Hannah Colclough, Scrutiny Officer, presented the work programme. Items for the next meeting on 2 November included the LCC Regional Rail Update, Highways Lane Rental Scheme, Disabled Parking Bays Policy, Highways Services Innovation Case Studies, Highways Engagement and Liaison Strategy, and the Highways Social Value Paper. Councillor Martin Ian Colin Christopher expressed strong concerns about the delay in addressing the Disabled Parking Bays policy, noting it had been 22 months since the committee made a decision and that residents were suffering due to the lack of progress. He highlighted a particularly poignant case of a resident who feared his wife would not be alive to see the policy implemented. Ms Hilton assured that the delay was due to a detailed cross-party scrutiny panel review of all traffic regulation orders, and that this was one of the first policies to come forward from that review. The committee approved the work programme.

Year 9 Lincolnshire Permit Scheme Statutory Evaluation Report 2026

Mandi Robinson, Network Regulation Compliance Manager, presented the Year 9 Lincolnshire Permit Scheme Statutory Evaluation Report. The report indicated that the permit scheme continues to operate effectively, despite a 62% increase in permit-related applications since its introduction. Compliance has improved, and Fixed Penalty Notice offences have reduced significantly. However, the scheme operated at a deficit due to rising costs, leading to revised permit fees implemented in January 2026. The report concluded that the scheme remains effective but acknowledged the ongoing challenge of increasing demand on the highway network and the need to consider further network management measures, such as lane rental schemes. The committee noted the report.

The meeting concluded with an informal question and answer session on local bus services.