Greenwich has been named as one of the worst local authorities in England for the way it deals with potholes – but the council disputed the government’s figures and said it had concerns about how they were calculated.
The Labour council is one of 13 rated “red” over the way it spends public money on the roads it administers. Some main roads – including the A2, A20, A102 and A205 – are run by Transport for London, which was given an “amber” rating.
Greenwich will now be given “dedicated support” to bring its transport department up to scratch – although with neighbouring Lewisham one of a handful of councils rated “green”, officers at the Woolwich Centre will not have to look far for ideas.
While many residents will know somewhere blighted by poor road conditions, such as Edmund Halley Way outside North Greenwich station, the condition of each authority’s roads is only part of the survey.
How much councils spend on road repairs and whether they are following best practice in maintaining highways are also included. The figures are based on data supplied to the Department for Transport by the councils themselves. Greenwich was actually rated “amber” for the condition of its roads, but rated “red” overall because of what the DfT judged to be failings in how roads were maintained.
However, Greenwich says the data it supplied to the DfT did not include all its spending on roads and that it was working to get a better rating.
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, said she was acting because of mounting repair bills for drivers who hit potholes. Poorly-maintained roads can have even worse consequences for cyclists.
She said: “For too long, drivers have paid the price because our roads were left to deteriorate. I have heard time and again their frustration on footing the bill because they hit a pothole – money they should never have to spend in the first place.
“We’ve put our money where our mouth is, increasing the funding for local highway authorities with £7.3 billion to fix roads and giving them the long-term certainty they have been asking for. Now it’s over to them to spend the money wisely, and for the first time, we are making sure the public can see how well councils are doing in delivering the improvements they want to see in their local area.”
Reacting to the story on social media, one resident, Guy Roberts, said that Greenwich Council staff had told him that roads needing repairs were simply pulled from a hat and then the work was done until the money ran out.
Asked to comment, the council did not address the claim directly but said it had begun “commenced an annual road condition survey programme which provides a thorough assessment of the overall condition of our highways”, and that it “conducts routine safety inspections on roads to identify the highest risk issues on our highways. In these instances, defects must meet a strict threshold which determines whether the risk to road users warrants intervention.”
Studying the data supplied by Greenwich and comparing it with that from Lewisham demonstrates the key figures behind the embarrassing accolade, albeit a comparison that Greenwich disputes.
In the last financial year, Greenwich spent just £2.8 million on its 300-mile road network, with 54 per cent going to “preventive maintenance” to stop potholes forming in the first place – the rest being spent on repairs. But Lewisham spent more than £9 million on its 244-mile network, with 83 per cent going towards preventive maintenance.
While Greenwich estimated it would spend a similar sum this year, only 38 per cent would go towards preventive maintenance, against 79 per cent of a £7.7 million spend in Lewisham.
However, since Greenwich submitted this year’s data to the DfT, it has increased its spending on roads as part of a pre-election splurge, which includes an extra £1.6 million being spent this year and every year to 2030.
Calum O’Byrne Mulligan, the cabinet member for transport, said: “We have raised concerns about details of this methodology with the DfT and we are working with them on this.
“The data we provided to the DfT in June 2025 also only included our direct spend on resurfacing roads and not spend on other important measures like winter gritting, street lighting and bridges, that we would not ordinarily consider part of road condition works but we understand could be considered in this assessment.
“Since the DfT collected its data last summer, we have resurfaced 21 more roads, completed more condition surveys, appointed a new contractor, as well as doubled our budget.
“To do this we have matched the much welcomed and long overdue increase in funding from the DfT, which has increased six-fold recognising the chronic underfunding all councils experienced under the previous government. This investment will help us fill hundreds more potholes and more than double the number of roads we fully resurface annually.
“We welcome any support to help us continue to improve our highways and our experience for our residents, so we look forward to working with the DfT and to help it standardise its new rating system and update Greenwich’s condition rating accordingly.”
Two other councils in London received “red” ratings, but Kensington & Chelsea and Waltham Forest have also criticised the methodology behind the survey, BBC London reported on Tuesday.
Bexley and Bromley were rated “amber”, along with the vast majority of councils in England. But when it came to the condition of their roads, Bexley was rated “green” while Bromley got the dreaded “red” score. Southwark was graded “amber”.
Updated at 2pm on Tuesday to include further comment from the council and BBC reporting from other councils.
📩 Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
Comments are closed.