Construction and maintenance of new or altered means of access
10.—(1) Those parts of each means of access specified in Schedule 5 (parts of access to be maintained at the public expense) to be constructed under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant highway authority and must be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker for a period of 12 months from completion and from the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the relevant highway authority.
(2) Those parts of each means of access specified in Schedule 5 (parts of access to be maintained at the public expense) to be constructed under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant street authority and must be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker for a period of 12 months from the date on which the undertaker no longer requires use of the access for the construction of the authorised development and from 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 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.
(4) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (3), a court is, in particular, to have regard to the following matters—
(a)the character of the street including 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 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 that the undertaker had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of that part of the street 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 street and that those instructions had been carried out.