(a)section 265 M1 (transfer of property and liabilities upon a highway becoming or ceasing to be a trunk road) of the 1980 Act applies in respect of that highway; and

(b)any alterations to that highway undertaken under powers conferred by this Order prior to and in connection with that de-trunking must, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local highway authority, be maintained by and at the expense of the local highway authority from the date of completion.

(5) Where a highway described in Part 2B (roads to be de-trunked and remain under the control and management of the undertaker) of Schedule 3 to this Order is de-trunked under this Order, section 265(7) of the 1980 Act does not apply in respect of that de-trunking, and the undertaker shall remain the highway authority for the highway in question.

(6) In the case of a bridge constructed under this Order to carry a highway (other than a trunk road) over or under a trunk road, the highway surface must from its completion be maintained by and at the expense of the local highway authority and the structure of the bridge must be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker.

(7) In the case of a bridge constructed under this Order to carry a highway (other than a trunk road) over another highway which is not a trunk road, both the highway surface and the structure of the bridge must be maintained by and at the expense of the local highway authority from the date of their completion.

(8) 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.

(9) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (8), 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 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 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.

(10) Any street formed on the Order land which is not open to vehicular use by the public, and which is used by the undertaker for the purposes of maintaining the authorised development, must be maintained by and at the expense of the undertaker or any successor in function, as the landowner of the land on which the street is situated.