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

Permit Officer - Internal works promoter - WMF2244e

£34,434 - £35,412
The streetworks Permit Officer role within the highways service Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Highways Development Management Engineer

£41,816 - £45,175
You will be based in the Highways Development Team and work closely with colleagues across the wider transport service. Northamptonshire
Recruiter: West Northamptonshire Council

Transport Project Officer

£34,203 - £37,067
We are seeking an enthusiastic and motivated project officer to work in our Highways and Transport Service. Northamptonshire
Recruiter: West Northamptonshire Council

Engineer - Structures

£40,777 - £44,075
Join the successful Structures team, and become a vital team member Broad Lane Office, Yate
Recruiter: South Gloucestershire Council

Assistant Traffic Management Technician - WMF2251e

£26,403 - £26,824
Westmorland and Furness Council is seeking an organised and enthusiastic individual Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Senior Traffic Management Technician WMF2256e

£34,434 to £35,412 (pay award pending)
Westmorland and Furness Council is looking for three experienced and motivated individuals Cumbria / Various
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Senior Bridge Technician - WMF2257e

£34,434 - £35,412
We are currently seeking to recruit a Senior Bridge Technician to join our Bridges and Structures team. Penrith, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Highways Network Officer WMF2263e

£38,220 - £39,152
In this role, you will assist in leading the South Lakes Area Highways team Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Traffic Management Technician - WMF2240e

£28,598 - £29,540
Westmorland and Furness Council is seeking a committed and technically capable individual to join our Traffic Management Team Kendal, Cumbria
Recruiter: Westmorland and Furness Council

Senior Technician-Road Closures

£35,422 - £38,730
The Network Planning division is seeking to appoint someone who is enthusiastic and a team player Derbyshire
Recruiter: Derbyshire County Council

Technician - Road Closures (2 Posts)

£29,719 - £31,691
The Network Planning division is seeking to appoint someone who is enthusiastic, an excellent team player Derbyshire
Recruiter: Derbyshire County Council

Structures Inspector

£Competitive
We are excited to offer a fantastic opportunity for two Permanent Structure Inspectors to join our dynamic SBIM team Bristol
Recruiter: Amey

Highways Maintenance Operative

£Competitive
We have fantastic opportunities for a permanent Highways Maintenance Operatives Kettering, Northamptonshire
Recruiter: Amey

Site Manager

£Competitive
We are excited to offer a fantastic opportunity for a Permanent Site Manager Bristol
Recruiter: Amey

Principal Commercial Manager

£Competitive
The SBIM contract involves delivering inspection and maintenance programmes for National Highways Bristol
Recruiter: Amey

Senior Commercial Manager

£Competitive
We are excited to offer a fantastic opportunity for a Permanent Senior Commercial Manager Nottingham, Nottinghamshire
Recruiter: Amey

Highways Maintenance Operative

£Competitive
We have fantastic opportunities for a permanent Highways Maintenance Operatives. Northampton, Northamptonshire
Recruiter: Amey

Managing QS

£Competitive
In this role, you will support the Senior Commercial team in the end to end commercial process for the Area 12 contract. Yorkshire and the Humber
Recruiter: Amey

Highways Inspection Officer

£32,962 - £36,791 per annum
We have an exciting opportunity for a Highways Inspection Officer to join us! Windsor, Berkshire
Recruiter: The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Highways Technical Assistant

£29,064 - £31,537
Are you looking for a varied role in a dynamic and innovative team environment that can make a real difference to North Yorkshire’s highways? Leeming Bar, Northallerton
Recruiter: North Yorkshire 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