10.—(1) Any street to be constructed under this Order shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant authority and, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authority, shall be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker for a period of 12 months from its completion and at the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the relevant authority.
(2) Where a street is altered or diverted under this Order, the altered or diverted part of the street shall, when completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant street authority, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant street authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker for a period of 12 months from its completion and at the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the relevant street authority.
(3) In any action against the undertaker in respect of loss or damage resulting from any failure by it to maintain a street under this article, it shall be a defence (without prejudice to any other defence or the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that the undertaker had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the street to which the action relates was not dangerous to traffic.
(4) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (3), the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters—
(a)the character of the street and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it;
(b)the standard of maintenance appropriate for a street of that character and used by such traffic;
(c)the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the street;
(d)whether the undertaker knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the street to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to traffic; and
(e)where the undertaker could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the street before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed,
but for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the undertaker had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the street to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the undertaker had given the competent person proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the street and that the competent person had carried out those instructions.
(5) Nothing in this article shall—
(a)prejudice the operation of section 87 of the 1991 Act (prospectively maintainable highways); and the undertaker shall not by reason of any duty under that article to maintain a street be taken to be a street authority in relation to that street for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act; or
(b)have effect in relation to the street works with regard to which the provisions of Part 3 of the 1991 Act apply.
(6) In this article—
(a)“relevant authority” means the relevant highway authority for all streets except footpaths where it will be the relevant local authority or street manager; and
(b)“street manager” has the same meaning as in the 1991 Act.