Section 278 works are one of those parts of property development that can sound fairly minor when they first appear in a planning condition. A new access here, a bit of road widening there, perhaps a pedestrian crossing or some changes to the junction outside the site. Nothing too dramatic.
Then you actually come to deliver them.
Suddenly you’ve got highway authority approvals, engineering drawings, road safety audits, utilities running exactly where you don’t want them, traffic management, legal agreements, bonds, inspections and a programme that has to line up with the rest of the development. What looked like a fairly straightforward piece of roadwork can end up sitting directly on the critical path to occupation.
That is why Section 278 needs to be taken seriously quite early in a development.
In simple terms, Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 allows a developer to pay for and carry out alterations to an existing public highway. If a new development needs changes to the road outside it, those changes will commonly be delivered through what everybody in the industry calls S278 works.
The work might be relatively modest. It could also involve rebuilding an entire junction.
Either way, there is quite a bit more to it than turning up with an excavator and closing half the road.
What exactly is a Section 278 agreement?
A Section 278 agreement is a legally binding agreement between the developer and the relevant highway authority. It sets out what is going to be changed on the public highway, how those works will be carried out and the conditions that need to be satisfied before the authority eventually accepts them.
The important bit here is the existing public highway.
Section 278 is often confused with Section 38 of the same Highways Act, but they deal with different things. Section 38 is generally concerned with new roads being constructed within a development which are intended to become adopted highway. Section 278 deals with changes to highway that is already publicly adopted.
A sizeable development can quite easily involve both.
Imagine a developer building 200 homes next to an existing A-road. The roads running through the new housing estate might ultimately be dealt with under a Section 38 agreement. But if the development also needs a new signal-controlled junction, widened footways and a pedestrian crossing on the A-road, those external works would normally fall under Section 278.
Planning permission by itself does not give the developer the right to start digging up public highway. The relevant agreement and approvals have to be in place first.
Why developers end up needing S278 works
Most developers don’t voluntarily decide that they’d like to spend another few hundred thousand pounds changing the road outside their site. The need normally emerges through the planning process.
A transport assessment may show that the development creates additional traffic at a junction. Perhaps the existing access isn’t suitable for the expected number or type of vehicles. A residential scheme may need safe pedestrian connections into the surrounding neighbourhood. A logistics site might need a larger junction capable of accommodating HGV movements without disrupting through traffic.
The planning permission then comes with conditions requiring those improvements.
Typical examples include a new development entrance, a right-turn lane, traffic signals, a pedestrian refuge, cycle facilities, bus stop improvements, carriageway widening or changes to an existing junction.
And this is where Section 278 stops being simply an engineering issue and becomes a commercial one.
If the planning permission says the highway improvements must be completed before the first homes, commercial units or other parts of the development can be occupied, a delay to the S278 works can become a delay to revenue.
The buildings could effectively be finished while the developer is still waiting for the road.
That’s an expensive place to be.
What sort of work can fall under Section 278?
There is no standard S278 job because the work is dictated by the development and the road network around it.
At the smaller end you might be dealing with changes to an access, dropped kerbs, tactile paving or relatively minor footway alterations.
Move up a level and you could have:
- new development accesses
- right-turn lanes and ghost-island junctions
- mini-roundabouts
- pedestrian refuges and controlled crossings
- cycle routes and shared-use paths
- bus stops and accessible kerbing
- traffic-calming features
- carriageway widening
- street lighting
- drainage alterations
- kerbing and footway works
- traffic signals
Then there are the much larger schemes where an existing junction is being substantially remodelled, signals are being introduced or replaced and several utility networks need moving before the road construction can even begin.
Those projects can get complicated very quickly.
Who actually controls the process?
The local highway authority is responsible for the adopted highway network, so it retains a considerable amount of control over what happens to it.
That is entirely understandable. Once the project is finished and the relevant maintenance period has passed, the authority may be taking responsibility for infrastructure that could remain in service for decades. It therefore wants to know that the design works, materials are suitable, construction standards have been met and the finished road is safe.
The developer normally pays for the whole exercise, but that doesn’t mean the developer can simply choose how to build it.
The highway authority reviews and approves the engineering design, deals with the legal agreement, checks road safety issues, carries out or oversees inspections and ultimately decides whether the completed works are acceptable.
There will normally be fees associated with that process too, including design checking and site supervision.
This can sometimes feel cumbersome from the developer’s side, particularly when programmes are tight. But it is much easier to work with the authority’s requirements from the beginning than spend months trying to undo a design that was never going to gain technical approval.
Section 278, Section 38 and Section 106 aren’t the same thing
These numbers get thrown around so frequently on development projects that it’s understandable when non-specialists start mixing them up.
The simplest way of looking at it is this:
Section 278 deals with alterations to an existing adopted highway.
Section 38 generally deals with new roads built as part of a development that are intended for adoption.
Section 106 sits within planning law and can place wider obligations on a development, including financial contributions or requirements connected with transport and infrastructure.
A large housing, commercial or mixed-use scheme can involve all three.
For example, the planning agreement might establish the requirement for transport improvements, Section 278 then deals with construction on the existing road outside the site and Section 38 deals with adoption of new streets inside it.
Keeping those different processes aligned is more important than it sounds. If drawings, phasing or responsibilities start contradicting one another, getting them straight again can consume an extraordinary amount of time.
Getting from planning permission to technical approval
The best time to start thinking seriously about Section 278 is not when somebody notices that construction of the buildings is nearly finished.
Early conversations with the highway authority can establish what it expects to see and flag obvious problems before a detailed design has been developed around the wrong assumptions.
Once the scheme reaches formal submission, the authority will normally want a fairly substantial technical package. Exactly what is required differs between councils and depends on the job, but it can include general arrangement drawings, levels and sections, drainage information, construction details, materials, swept-path analysis, road safety audits, street-lighting design, utility information and traffic-management proposals.
There may also be cost estimates, insurance information, bond documentation and information required under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.
It is worth getting this submission right.
An incomplete pack does not save time. It simply moves the time somewhere else, usually into a long chain of comments, amended drawings and resubmissions.
For straightforward schemes, technical review may be reasonably quick. More complicated designs can take months, particularly if several revisions are needed or the highway authority itself is busy.
The legal agreement is another process running alongside all of this, so technical approval should never be mistaken for permission to start construction.
Road safety audits can change the design
Road Safety Audits are another reason to avoid treating the highway design as finished too early.
An independent audit may raise concerns about visibility, pedestrian movements, cyclist safety, junction geometry, signage or some other aspect that didn’t look problematic on the original drawing.
Those points have to be considered and formally responded to.
Sometimes the answer is that the original design is justified. Sometimes it isn’t, and something has to move.
The earlier that happens, the better.
Changing the position of a refuge island on a drawing is one thing. Discovering that it needs changing after drainage, ducting, kerbing and traffic-signal infrastructure have all been coordinated around it is quite another.
Then there are the utilities
Anybody who has spent much time around highway construction will probably know where this section is going.
The ground under Britain’s roads can be astonishingly crowded.
Gas, water, electricity, telecoms, drainage and various generations of redundant or badly recorded infrastructure can all occupy the narrow strip of land where a developer now needs to widen a road or install a new junction.
A utility search is therefore not some administrative box to tick at the end of design. It can fundamentally affect whether the proposed scheme is practical and how much it is going to cost.
Moving services can also involve organisations whose programme is not the developer’s programme.
A relatively small highway job can suddenly acquire months of delay because a cable or main needs diverting.
Early C2, C3 and C4 enquiries, where appropriate, and proper coordination with the statutory undertakers give the project a much better chance of discovering those problems while there is still time to do something sensible about them.
Traffic management is often underestimated too
Most S278 works have another awkward characteristic: the construction site is also a road that people still need to use.
That changes everything.
You may be trying to excavate, install drainage, place kerbs and surface a carriageway while buses, cars, cyclists and pedestrians continue moving around the work.
On busy roads, some operations may have to happen at night or over weekends. Lane closures may be restricted. Temporary signals may be required. Access to neighbouring properties has to be maintained. Emergency services and public transport still need to function.
Traffic management can consequently take a surprisingly large chunk of the budget.
It also affects productivity. A contractor who might complete an activity quite quickly on a closed site may have only a short working window on a live highway.
It is far better to understand those restrictions when pricing and programming the job than discover them immediately before work starts.
Why the actual civil engineering needs thinking about early
There is a tendency to think of Section 278 as a legal and approvals process because so much paperwork surrounds it. But eventually somebody has to build the thing.
And the highway doesn’t exist in isolation from the development behind it.
Take levels.
The road has existing levels. The new site has proposed levels. Vehicles need a sensible gradient between the two. Surface water has to go somewhere. Footways need to meet properly. Visibility has to be maintained.
Then add drainage. Then utilities. Then earthworks. Perhaps retaining structures. Kerbs, ducts, lighting columns and surfacing all have to occupy the same relatively small area without getting in each other’s way.
This is where early practical input from the people who understand how the infrastructure is going to be constructed becomes valuable.
For example MAC Group Ltd S278 Works services form part of the company’s wider civil engineering offering, covering the sort of elements that often come together at the development boundary. That includes highway improvements, new or upgraded junctions and access works, drainage, kerbing and associated infrastructure. Bringing those elements together under one experienced team can make coordination easier, particularly where the highway works need to tie closely into the wider development programme.
That joined-up approach makes sense because Section 278 is rarely just a surfacing job. The road construction may depend on drainage that begins further inside the site, earthworks may determine the final access levels and utility routes can influence almost everything else. Treating every element as somebody else’s separate package can work, but it creates more interfaces, and interfaces are often where programmes begin to unravel.
For developers with substantial commercial, residential or infrastructure schemes, involving an experienced civils contractor before all of those decisions become fixed can expose practical problems while they are still relatively cheap to solve.
What does a Section 278 agreement actually contain?
Once the design has developed far enough, the legal agreement puts the developer’s responsibilities in writing.
The detail varies between highway authorities and projects, but it normally defines the scope of the works, drawings and specifications, estimated construction value, programme requirements and responsibilities for completing the job.
There may also be provisions covering insurance, indemnities, inspection arrangements, maintenance, future liabilities and what happens if the developer fails to complete the work.
A performance bond or other financial security is commonly involved.
The principle is straightforward. The authority does not want to be left with a half-finished junction if a development company fails or abandons the project. The security provides a means of getting the highway completed in those circumstances.
Depending on the authority and scheme, developers may also have to pay commuted sums towards the future maintenance of items which impose additional costs on the council, such as traffic signals, specialist surfacing or unusual structures.
The exact figures can vary considerably, which is another reason generic development budgets should be treated with caution.
How much do Section 278 works cost?
There isn’t a particularly useful one-size-fits-all answer.
A small access or pedestrian improvement may cost tens of thousands of pounds. A substantial junction reconstruction involving traffic signals, drainage, utility diversions and extensive traffic management can comfortably move beyond £1 million.
For something in the middle, such as a new priority junction with pedestrian facilities, costs might run from around £50,000 to £150,000 or considerably more once difficult site conditions are added.
The construction cost is only part of the story.
A developer may also be paying for design, highway authority checking and inspection fees, Road Safety Audits, traffic management, utility diversions, legal work, bonds, commuted sums and contingency.
That difference matters.
A £300,000 construction package does not necessarily mean there is a £300,000 S278 liability in the development appraisal. Once everything around the construction has been included, the actual cost can be substantially higher.
Utilities are particularly difficult to generalise about. A relatively simple diversion might be manageable. Moving major apparatus can transform the economics of a scheme.
How long does Section 278 take?
Again, the answer developers don’t particularly enjoy hearing is: it depends.
Simple schemes can move through the process in a few months. Medium-sized projects might take six to twelve months. Large junction schemes, particularly those involving signals, statutory utility diversions or Traffic Regulation Orders, can take a year or considerably longer from initial submission through construction.
The original article’s research gives an idea of just how wide the variation can be. Technical approval periods reported by authorities have ranged from a matter of weeks to many months, while legal completion can take longer again.
That means a development programme based on a neat assumption such as “allow three months for S278” is asking for trouble unless the project really is very simple.
The programme needs to allow for design, audits, authority comments, revisions, the legal agreement, utilities, contractor procurement, road-space bookings, permits and construction.
And afterwards there may still be a maintenance period before final completion.
The signed agreement is not the end
Once technical approval has been obtained, the agreement signed, financial security arranged and any pre-start requirements satisfied, construction can begin.
The highway authority will normally inspect the works as they progress.
This isn’t just a final look once the asphalt has gone down. Depending on the project, inspectors may need to see things that will subsequently disappear underground, such as drainage, formation, sub-base construction or other details.
Quality records therefore matter.
So does communication.
Unexpected conditions do arise in highway work. What matters is whether they are dealt with properly and agreed before somebody builds a solution the authority later refuses to accept.
After practical completion, there is commonly a defects or maintenance period, often around 12 months, during which the developer remains responsible for problems with the works.
Only after that period and the final inspections have been satisfactorily completed does the authority finally accept the relevant infrastructure.
The mistakes that cause most trouble
Many S278 problems aren’t particularly exotic. They are ordinary problems that were allowed to become expensive.
One of the most common is simply starting too late.
The development team focuses on planning, buildings and internal infrastructure, then turns its attention to the external highway once occupation is getting close. By that point the S278 programme has no room to absorb authority comments, utility delays or legal issues.
Incomplete technical submissions create the same kind of problem. Sending drawings in early might feel like progress, but if important information is missing the approval process simply stalls.
Utilities are another familiar one. If a scheme has effectively been designed on the assumption that everything underground will somehow move out of the way, there can be an unpleasant correction later.
Traffic management gets underestimated because it looks temporary. In reality, maintaining traffic and carrying out roadworks safely can dictate how, when and how quickly the entire job is built.
Then there is coordination with the main development.
The point where the private site meets the public highway ought to be one of the most carefully coordinated areas on the project. Oddly enough, it sometimes ends up being the opposite because different designers and contractors are responsible on either side of an imaginary line.
Levels don’t care about contractual boundaries. Neither does water.
Section 278 works can affect occupation and cash flow
This is perhaps the part that gets the attention of directors and funders.
An unfinished highway obligation can stop occupation.
For a housebuilder, that can mean completed homes which can’t be occupied when planned. For a logistics or industrial development it could mean a finished building that the tenant cannot yet use. On a commercial scheme, that may affect rent commencement, practical completion arrangements and funding milestones.
Holding costs continue while revenue waits.
Seen in that light, spending a little more time and money getting the highway package properly designed and programmed early on doesn’t look like unnecessary professional expense. It looks like protection against a much larger commercial problem.
Section 278 should therefore sit on the development’s critical-path programme from quite an early stage rather than appearing as an appendix to the construction schedule.
A few practical ways to make the process less painful
There is no magic trick for making local authority approvals disappear, and there shouldn’t be. These are public roads and the work needs proper scrutiny.
There are, however, some fairly obvious ways to avoid making the process harder than it needs to be.
Get the highway authority involved early enough to establish the basic scope.
Use designers who understand adoptable highway work and the authority’s own requirements.
Find the utilities before finalising the design.
Carry out Road Safety Audits at sensible points rather than leaving them until the design is effectively frozen.
Think about traffic management while the job is being priced.
Make sure the Section 278 design and the internal site design are actually based on the same levels, drainage strategy and phasing assumptions.
And don’t build your development programme around the best-case approval time you can find on Google.
A bit of contingency is considerably cheaper than having a completed development waiting for its junction.
Does every contractor have the right experience for S278 works?
Not necessarily.
Working on an adopted public highway is different from working entirely within a private development site.
Contractors may need appropriate street-works qualifications, suitable insurance and experience of working under highway permit and inspection arrangements. Authorities may also have their own requirements concerning who is permitted to carry out the work.
That doesn’t mean the contractor needs to be enormous. It does mean they need to understand the environment they are working in.
Failed inspections, poor records or construction that doesn’t match the approved details can lead to remedial work, and there are few things more irritating than digging up something you’ve only just paid to build.
Why coordination usually matters more than people expect
A successful Section 278 project often looks fairly unremarkable once it’s finished.
Cars drive through the new junction. Pedestrians use the crossing. Rain disappears into the drainage. Nobody gives much thought to the ducts beneath the road or the level of the kerbs.
That’s rather the point.
The hard work sits behind the finished result. Engineering, approvals, utilities, legal obligations, construction sequencing and inspections all have to come together at roughly the right time.
When they don’t, the problems become very visible indeed.
For developers, the best way to think about Section 278 is therefore not as an annoying piece of off-site roadwork imposed by planning. It is part of the development’s core infrastructure and needs to be managed with the same attention as drainage, earthworks, utilities and the buildings themselves.
Get involved early, understand what the authority requires, leave realistic time in the programme and make sure the people designing the work are talking to the people who eventually have to build it.
That won’t remove every surprise hiding beneath a British road.
But it gives you a much better chance of dealing with them before they’re holding up the entire development.
Frequently Asked Questions
When is a Section 278 agreement normally required?
A Section 278 agreement is generally needed when a development requires physical alterations to an existing adopted highway. That might include a new access, junction improvement, pedestrian crossing, carriageway widening or similar work.
The requirement commonly emerges through a planning condition or related planning obligation. The highway authority can confirm the precise process for an individual development.
Can work start once the highway design has technical approval?
Not necessarily.
Technical approval is only one part of the process. The Section 278 agreement normally needs to be completed and any required bond, insurance, fees and other pre-start conditions dealt with before construction begins on the public highway.
Starting prematurely can expose the developer to enforcement action and potentially create much bigger problems with the highway authority.
How long does technical approval usually take?
Straightforward schemes may receive comments and approval within several weeks, while complicated junctions can take several months, particularly where designs need revision.
Authority workload, Road Safety Audit issues, drainage, signals, utilities and Traffic Regulation Orders can all affect the programme.
The safest approach is to assume that there will be comments rather than building the development schedule around first-time approval.
What happens if Section 278 works aren’t finished before occupation?
That depends on the planning permission and legal agreements, but it can be serious.
Where completion of the highway works is a pre-occupation requirement, the developer may be prevented from occupying or selling the relevant part of the development until the obligation has been satisfied.
Any alternative arrangement would need to be formally agreed with the relevant authority. A developer should never simply assume that an extension will be granted.
Are Section 278 costs refundable if the development is abandoned?
Costs already incurred by the highway authority for legal work, design checking or other professional services will generally need to be paid in accordance with the authority’s arrangements.
Treatment of deposits, bonds and other payments depends on the particular agreement, so the documentation should be reviewed carefully with the project’s legal advisers.
What is the biggest thing developers can do to avoid S278 delays?
Start earlier than you think you need to.
Most of the individual problems that delay Section 278 works can be dealt with. Utility conflicts can be redesigned around or diverted. Audit comments can be resolved. Traffic management can be planned. Authority comments can be incorporated.
The real difficulty comes when all of those perfectly ordinary issues appear on a programme that has no time left in it.