The London Luton Airport Expansion Development Consent Order 2025

12 Construction and maintenance of new, altered or diverted streets

(1) Any highway to be constructed under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant highway authority and, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the relevant highway authority, must be maintained by and at the expense of the relevant highway authority from its completion. (2) Where a highway is altered or diverted under this Order, the altered or diverted part of the highway must, when completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant highway authority, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant highway authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the relevant highway authority from its completion. (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to Part 5 (for the protection of National Highways Limited) and Part 6 (for the protection of local highway authorities) of Schedule 8 to this Order. (4) Where a street which is not and is not intended to be a public highway is constructed, altered or diverted under this Order, the street (or part of the street as the case may be) must, when completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority, and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the street authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the street authority from its completion. (5) 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. (6) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (5), 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.