8.—(1) Any street (other than a GLA Road) constructed under this Order must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority and, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the street authority, must be maintained by and at the expense of TfL for a period of 12 months from its completion and thereafter by the street authority.
(2) Where a street (other than a GLA Road) is altered or diverted under this Order, the altered or diverted part of the street must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority and, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the street authority, that part of the street must be maintained by and at the expense of TfL for a period of 12 months from its completion and thereafter by the street authority.
(3) Where land not previously part of the public highway comes to form part of the public highway by virtue of the construction, diversion or alteration of a street under this Order, unless otherwise agreed with the street authority the land is deemed to have been dedicated as public highway on the expiry of a period of 12 months from completion of the street that has been constructed, altered or diverted.
(4) In any action against TfL in respect of loss or damage resulting from any failure by TfL 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 TfL 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 TfL 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 TfL 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 TfL 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 TfL 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.
(6) The date of completion of any works referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) is to be agreed between TfL and the street authority, acting reasonably.