The Gatwick Airport (Northern Runway Project) Development Consent Order 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
20 Construction and maintenance of local highway works
(1) Any local highways constructed, altered or diverted under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant highway authority and must, as regards the part constructed, altered or diverted, unless otherwise agreed between the undertaker and the relevant highway authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker for a period of 12 months from the day on which they are first open to through traffic and at the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the relevant highway authority. (2) In any action against the undertaker in respect of loss or damage resulting from any failure by it to maintain a local highway 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 local highway to which the action relates was not dangerous to traffic. (3) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (2), the court must in particular have regard to the following matters— (a) the character of the local highway including the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it; (b) the standard of maintenance appropriate for a local highway of that character and used by such traffic; (c) the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the local highway; (d) whether the undertaker knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the local highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway; and (e) where the undertaker could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the local highway 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 that the undertaker had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of that part of the local highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the undertaker had given that person proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that those instructions had been carried out.
20 Construction and maintenance of local highway works
(1) Any local highways constructed, altered or diverted under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant highway authority and must, as regards the part constructed, altered or diverted, unless otherwise agreed between the undertaker and the relevant highway authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker for a period of 12 months from the day on which they are first open to through traffic and at the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the relevant highway authority. (2) In any action against the undertaker in respect of loss or damage resulting from any failure by it to maintain a local highway 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 local highway to which the action relates was not dangerous to traffic. (3) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (2), the court must in particular have regard to the following matters— (a) the character of the local highway including the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it; (b) the standard of maintenance appropriate for a local highway of that character and used by such traffic; (c) the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the local highway; (d) whether the undertaker knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the local highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway; and (e) where the undertaker could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the local highway 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 that the undertaker had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of that part of the local highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the undertaker had given that person proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that those instructions had been carried out.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
How this law is officially changed
Solon does not know this law's official route yet. The proposal is recorded all the same, and the route appears here once its source is added.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.