Serious questions have been raised over the use of the “pothole pro” machine in Lincolnshire after a scrutiny meeting exposed gaps in the evidence and conflicting claims about its effectiveness.

At the Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee, officers confirmed the machine delivers only around an estimated 5% efficiency improvement compared to existing methods. Members also heard that its main strength is reactive patching, not fixing individual potholes.

One councillor summed it up bluntly during the meeting:

Cllr Charlotte Vernon , Conservative Shadow Executive Member for Highways said:

“It’s not very good at potholes. Officers admitted that, and the evidence backs it up.

This is the same machine that was trialled before and not taken forward. So it is right that the committee, and the public, ask why something previously judged not suitable for Lincolnshire is now being pushed so hard by Reform.

Nothing about our roads has changed. The question is, what has changed in their approach?”

During the scrutiny meeting, even a senior Lincolnshire County Council highways engineer admitted that fixing potholes is not what the machine does best.

That goes to the heart of the issue. Lincolnshire’s problem is not clusters of medium-sized defects. It is thousands of small potholes spread across a large rural network.

The previous trial raises further questions

This is not new technology. The machine was trialled in Lincolnshire before, including a short trial based out of Horncastle. At that time it was not adopted.

Officers have previously stated:

  • it is more expensive than standard equipment
  • it struggles across rural distances
  • it is not suited to dispersed potholes
  • if it added value, the contractor would already be using it
  • The same officer team previously advised they felt a competitor machine, the Multihog, was better.

Despite that, the same machine is now being presented as a solution.

Costs, Productivity and Value still unclear

Scrutiny members repeatedly challenged the lack of detail in the report. Key information was missing, including:

  • full cost comparisons with existing equipment
  • transport and low-loader costs
  • total output delivered during the trial
  • repeat defect rates
  • impact on the backlog

Without that, claims about value for money remain unproven.

Contractor Decision, not council investment

It was also confirmed that the machine is owned and deployed by the contractor, not the council. The decision to use it sits with them, within the contract.

That raises a simple question. If this machine genuinely delivers better results, why was it not adopted earlier?

Residents deserve results, not rebranding

Conservative councillors have made clear they are not opposed to innovation. But new equipment must deliver real improvements on the ground, not marginal gains wrapped in publicity.

With only at best modest estimated efficiency uplift, higher costs, and clear limits on where it works, the case for widespread use in Lincolnshire is far from proven.

Residents expect roads to be fixed properly. That means using the right tools for the job, backed by clear evidence, not assumptions.

National Attention to JCB Links to REFORM Politicians

The questions come amid wider national attention on the promotion of the JCB Pothole Pro by Reform politicians. Reporting in The Guardian has highlighted that senior Reform figures have publicly backed the machine, with the party receiving a £200,000 donation from JCB in 2025.

Lincolnshire Conservatives are clear that no allegations are being made about local officers or procurement processes. However, given the level of political promotion surrounding this specific product, it is reasonable for residents to expect full transparency on costs, performance and value for money before any claims about its effectiveness are accepted.

Doubts Raised of lack  of data

Cllr Sean Matthews, REFOM Leader of Lincolnshire County Council in the same Guardian article claimed “ This new trial has shown a real benefit to road repair which can be proven, beyond doubt, after eight months on our roads. We now have a large amount of data which shows exactly where the gains are.”

If that data exists, it should be published in full. At scrutiny, members were told only of a modest improvement, around 5%, with no detailed breakdown of costs, outputs, transport time or long-term durability. Key figures were missing, and councillors from across the committee raised concerns about the lack of transparency. Until that evidence is properly shared and tested, claims of benefits “beyond doubt” simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

Further scrutiny is now expected, with councillors calling for full transparency on costs, performance and long-term value before any wider rollout.