New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

Changes over time for: Section 69

Version Superseded: 28/09/2007

Alternative versions:

Status:

Point in time view as at 23/08/2007. This version of this provision has been superseded.

Status

You are viewing this legislation item as it stood at a particular point in time. A later version of this or provision, including subsequent changes and effects, supersedes this version.

Note the term provision is used to describe a definable element in a piece of legislation that has legislative effect – such as a Part, Chapter or section.

Changes to legislation:

New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, Section 69 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 15 November 2024. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.

Changes to Legislation

Changes and effects yet to be applied by the editorial team are only applicable when viewing the latest version or prospective version of legislation. They are therefore not accessible when viewing legislation as at a specific point in time. To view the ‘Changes to Legislation’ information for this provision return to the latest version view using the options provided in the ‘What Version’ box above.

69 Works likely to affect other apparatus in the street.E+W

(1)Where street works are likely to affect another person’s apparatus in the street, the undertaker executing the works shall take all reasonably practicable steps—

(a)to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

(b)to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it.

(2)An undertaker who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence in respect of each failure and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 4] on the standard scale.

(3)In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the failure was attributable—

(a)to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person’s apparatus, or

(b)to his not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.

Textual Amendments

F1Words in s. 69(2) substituted (4.10.2004 for E.) by Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18), ss. 40(1)(2), 99(1), Sch. 1; S.I. 2004/2380, art. 2(d)(i) (with art. 3)

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1Pt. 3 modified (2.4.2004) by The Docklands Light Railway (Woolwich Arsenal Extension) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/757), arts. 1, 3(1)

C2Pt. 3 modified (11.2.2005) by The Merseytram (Liverpool City Centre to Kirkby) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/120), arts. 1, 4(1)(2) (with arts. 65, 66)

C3Pt. 3 modified (22.3.2005) by The Midland Metro (Wednesbury to Brierley Hill and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/927), art. 3(1)(2) (with art. 51)

C4Pt. 3 modified (22.7.2005) by The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension, etc.) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1794), arts. 1, 3(1)(2) (with art. 47)

C5Pt. 3 applied (3.8.2005) by The Greater Manchester (Leigh Busway) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1918), arts. 1, 3(1)