The ground beneath your feet and the sky above your head

17/01/2019 | JON HART

Jon Hart of award-winning law firm Pinsent Masons LLP takes a look at a recent UK Supreme Court decision on the common law definition of ‘highway’, the meaning of ‘two spits’ and what this might mean for transport authorities and developers.

Every now and again it is a good idea to challenge assumptions about familiar and well-used words. Take the name of this distinguished publication, for example: ‘Highways’. What does this mean? In a unanimous decision, handed down last month by the Supreme Court, the UK’s highest court considered this question.

The case was between two public authorities (London Borough of Southwark v Transport for London, [2018] UKSC63). Some aspects of the court’s finding may be seen as surprising – and may have ramifications not just for transport authorities but stakeholders in property development schemes beside, above or beneath highways.

First, some definitions – or lack of definitions. It is perhaps surprising that there is no single meaning of ‘highway’ in law.

One of the judges referred to the ‘rich tapestry’ of the law in this area.

Over the years, the law has had to distinguish between those who own highways, those who are required to maintain and repair highways and highways users.

These rights can change over time – for example, if I am no longer obliged to repair and maintain a road, does this mean that I no longer ‘own’ it?

Furthermore, where do my rights end? At black-top level, at drainage level, or further below? Does this mean I have rights in respect of minerals and other finds beneath the road?

Likewise, where do my rights above the highway finish? Am I allowed to erect a structure over a road – run cables for trams or build a suspended structure above it?

These kinds of questions were at the heart of the case that the court was asked to consider. Historically, cases had considered that ‘highway’ might mean ‘surface and top two spits of subsoil’ beneath the carriageway and limitations above the carriageway (what has sometimes been referred to as the ‘Baird’ principle after an old case from 1896).

These considerations were important for both Transport for London (TfL) and Southwark, given the way in which local government and the local road network had been dealt with in the legislation associated with the establishment of the Greater London Authority back in 1999.

TfL had sought clarity from the Supreme Court about the legal definition of ‘highway’ following the transfer to it of roads previously maintained by London’s borough councils.

The relevant statutory transfer arrangements provided that TfL was receiving ‘the highway, in so far as it is vested in the former highway authority’.

In simple terms, TfL had been seeking determination that the council had previously enjoyed wide rights and therefore TfL was entitled to those same wide rights, especially in relation to rights above the roads; the council argued that the rights were much narrower – and applied only to that part of the vertical plane above the road as was necessary for the operation, maintenance and repair of the highway.

Given the financial value associated with these kinds of questions, there were probably many other interested parties looking on to see what the final outcome of the case was going to be.

The Supreme Court took a careful look at this issue. They came to the conclusion that there is no one meaning of the term ‘highway’ when it comes to rights of ownership.

Instead of some of the older terminology that dated back from the 19th century, the court gave approval to what was considered as the ‘zone of ordinary use’ for a road: a more flexible concept covering various depths of subsoil and airspace height depending on the nature and intensity of the use of the road.

Accordingly, ‘highway’ could have a range of meanings, the court held: ‘When used within a statutory formula, [as was the case with the transfer to TfL], the word necessarily takes its meaning from the context in which it is used.’

Consideration focused particularly on the types of rights that local authorities might have applied in relation to affected highways. Where authorities were responsible for the maintenance and operation of highways, their rights may be more limited than, for example, where they owned property alongside the highways in question.

In the former case, the meaning of highway may be narrower following the old ‘Baird principle’. Where the authority was an owner of land adjoining the highway, then it would be more likely that they would have wider rights and entitlement, including potentially lucrative development rights above the highway itself.

So what does this all mean in practice? Certainly the flexibility approved by the Supreme Court in relation to the meaning of ‘highway’ can be seen as a good thing – one could imagine circumstances where the blanket imposition of the old Baird principle across a range of different scenarios could give rise to unforeseen outcomes.

However, this case does mean that those involved in highway matters should carefully consider how the term is being used and be alive to matters of interpretation.

For example, in matters of negotiation, taking time and trouble to ensure that all parties involved in a highway matter are using the same definition and have a shared understanding is likely to be of increased importance.

This means giving consideration to the extent of land, vertically and horizontally that is required for a highway.

Following this case, airspace and subsoil above and below the surface of the highway may well be included within a ‘zone of ordinary use’ where they may previously have been excluded from the previous definition of ‘surface and top two spits of subsoil’.

In practical terms, if there are particular sub-surface or airspace construction issues in relation to developments, these should be specifically addressed.

Additionally, in view of this case, consideration should be given as to the scope to widen the horizontal extent of the highway beyond its surface, to adjoining land, where such land is required to facilitate the ordinary use of the highway. This last point will be an important consideration for both the dedication of land as a highway and also the ‘stopping up’, or closure, of a highway.

Parties will need to ensure that only necessary land is included within the highway; and any development value in the airspace, subsoil and adjoining land around the highway is protected.

And the meaning of ‘spit’? The relevant cases and legal authorities are quite clear on this point, albeit that this may differ from interpretations in football’s Premier League. A ‘spit’, of course, is the depth of a spade.

Highways InProfile

latest magazine issue
Highways jobs

Project Lead - Bridges and Structures WMF3037e

£45,718 to £46,731
We are currently seeking to recruit a Project Lead to join our Bridges and Structures team Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Traffic Management Technician - WMF3040e

£27,711 - £28,624
Are you an organised and motivated individual who wants to make a difference to how our roads are managed? Cumbria / Various
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Traffic Management Officer - WMF2114e

£37,035 - £37,938
Are you an experienced and motivated professional looking to take the next step in your traffic management career? Cumbria / Various
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Senior Transport Planner

£47,532 - £50,574
Royal Greenwich is a borough synonymous with first class modern services Greenwich, London (Greater)
Recruiter: Royal Borough of Greenwich

Technician - Highway Inspector

Grade 8 £28,797 - £30,708 per annum (Pay Award Pending)
Within the Highways Maintenance Team we are looking for an enthusiastic, customer focused and experienced person to join the Service Derbyshire
Recruiter: Derbyshire County Council

Project Delivery Senior Team Leader

£74,480 - £85,964
Are you an experienced Chartered Civil Engineer (or equivalent professional qualification) Glasgow City
Recruiter: Transport Scotland

Assistant Traffic Management Technician - WMF2104e

£25,584 - £25,992
Westmorland and Furness Council is seeking an organised and enthusiastic individual to join our South Lakeland team Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Bulky Operative

£25,584.00 - £27,269.00, Grade 5, 37 hours, Permanent.
An opportunity exists in the Council’s Street Scene Services for a Bulky Operative Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Recruiter: Wakefield Council

Project Delivery Team Leader

£57,710 - £71,842
Are you an experienced Chartered Civil Engineer (or equivalent professional qualification). Glasgow City
Recruiter: Transport Scotland

Traffic Management Officer - WMF2102e

£37,035 - £37,938
This is a key role supporting the delivery a wide range of traffic and road safety schemes. Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Shared Service Manager (Waste) North Herts Council

£52000 - £61000 per annum
Shared Service Manager (Waste) North Herts CouncilNorth Herts CouncilPermanent, Full Time£52,866 - £61,866 per annum, plus car allowance (pay award pe England, Hertfordshire, Letchworth Garden City
Recruiter: Essex County Council

Traffic Management Officer - WMF2102e

£37,035 - £37,938
This is a key role supporting the delivery a wide range of traffic and road safety schemes. Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Assistant Traffic Management Technician - WMF2104e

£25,584 - £25,992
This is a key support role, helping to deliver a wide range of traffic and road safety schemes across South Lakeland. Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Flood Risk Engineering and Strategy Officer

£49,764 - £55,623
In line with our One Coventry Values, we want to ensure that our communities are represented across our workforce Coventry, West Midlands
Recruiter: Coventry City Council

Senior Integrated Transport Officer

£34,324 - £37,529
Are you an experienced transport planning professional ready to influence strategic policy and drive real change Matlock, Derbyshire
Recruiter: Derbyshire County Council

Roadworker Trainee LGV Driver (3 Posts)

Grade 6 £25,183 - £25,638 per annum (Pay award pending)
We’re looking for Roadworker/trainee LGV drivers to be part of our team undertaking major highway, bridge and related construction and reconstruction Derbyshire
Recruiter: Derbyshire County Council

Engineer

£44,430 - £51,663
This post is within the Highways Design and Delivery Team. London (Greater)
Recruiter: Tower Hamlets London Borough Council

Civil Enforcement Officer - WMF3013e

£27,711 -£28,624
Are you seeking an active and challenging role, part of a friendly and welcoming team? Cumbria / Various
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

UGO Bus Driver

Up to £25081.00 per annum
UGO Bus DriverPermanent, Part TimeUp to £25,081 per annum (full time equivalent)Location
Recruiter: Essex County Council

Head of Highways Operations

Salary
Somerset Council
Recruiter: Somerset Council
SUBSCRIBE NOW

Latest Video

Subscribe to Highways today to ensure you keep your finger on the pulse of everything happening in the UK road network throughout the year.

SUBSCRIBE NOW