The A19/A184 Testo’s Junction Alteration Development Consent Order 2018

Construction and maintenance of new, altered or diverted streets

10.—(1) Any street (other than a trunk road) to be constructed under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the local highway authority in whose area the street lies and, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local highway authority, must be maintained by and at the expense of the local highway authority from its completion.

(2) Where a street (other than a trunk road) is altered or diverted under this Order, the altered or diverted part of the street must, when completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority in whose area the street lies and, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local street authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the local street authority from its completion.

(3) In the case of a bridge constructed under this Order to carry a highway (other than a trunk road) over a trunk road, the highway surface (being those elements over the waterproofing membrane) must be maintained by and at the expense of the local highway authority and the remainder of the bridge, including the waterproofing membrane and structure below, must be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker.

(4) 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 is 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.

(5) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (4), the court must 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 dangers to users of the street; 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.