Methodology and findings
A survey was hosted on the Let’s talk Lincolnshire platform. The consultation was open for 30 days from 10 November to 10 December 2025.
Two key documents were placed on the platform, these were the consultation document and the Permit Scheme for Road Works and Street Works (Variation) Order 2025.
A written invite to comment was sent directly to primary stakeholders (specified above).
Utilities were given the opportunity discuss the consultation at the Lincolnshire Highways Authorities and Utilities Committee co-ordination meeting on 3 December 2025.
Newsletters including:
- Town and parish council newsletter
- County Catch Up
- Let’s talk newsletter (5,400 recipients)
Findings
The project page had 467 visits from 418 individuals and representatives.
The majority (214) came to the project page from newsletters that were sent out to residents that are signed up to receive news of engagement activities. 134 came direct because of targeted communications.
74 potential respondents downloaded key documents (72% were the consultation document).
Over 410 people viewed more than one project page (418).
Almost 85 stakeholders (83) completed the survey to provide feedback. Another 5 responded directly to the service area giving a total of 88.
Of the 88 responses, 79 (89.8.%) agreed with the proposal to increase the permit scheme fees, 6 (6.8%) said they shouldn’t be increased and 3 (3.4%) were unsure.
There were responses from 71 residents, 66 agreed, 4 disagreed and 1 was unsure about the proposal.
There were responses from 11 councillors, 10 agreed with the proposal to increase permit scheme fees and 1 was unsure.
Four undertakers of work responded, 2 agreed with the proposal and 2 disagreed.
Responses from 2 local interest groups were also in support of the proposal.
When the comments were analysed, the main responses are as follows:
- support for increasing fees (general approval): 21
- many respondents said the proposal is fair/reasonable, overdue, or needed, including several parish or town councils expressing support
- fees should cover costs or be cost‑neutral (no taxpayer subsidy): 10
- strong view that the scheme should at least break even and not be subsidised by council taxpayers; utilities/contractors should pay
- better coordination and collaborative working (including discounts): 7
- requests to plan and consolidate works so roads aren’t dug up multiple times; suggestions to incentivise collaboration
- costs will be passed to customer bills (acknowledged/concern): 7
- recognition that utilities may pass costs to customers, but several felt that is preferable to council taxpayers subsidising
- deposits, retention or stronger post‑works inspections: 6
- calls for a deposit or retention (or rigorous inspections and defect management) to ensure quality reinstatement
- implementation timing, staged increases or inflation linkage: 6
- suggestions to index to inflation, have regular annual reviews, or specific timing
- oppose increase, reduce or remove need for permits: 6
- suggestions to reduce fees, make permits free, or remove the scheme altogether