PUBLIC CONSULTATION – Friday 9th July 2021

KGV ALIVE – SKATEPARK

Meeting 1

Present:

• Chair – Mike Edmund
• Freestyle Collective – 4 representatives
• SCCF – 1 representative Angela Coakley
• KGV Committee – 2 representatives – Helen Mooney and Simon Foot
• Sarratt Parish Council – 2 representatives – Cllr Peter Thorp & Caroline Owen – Clerk

In attendance:

• District Councillor Ciaran Reed
• 33 Members of the public (M.O.P)

Meeting held at KGV Pavilion, KGV Fields, Sarratt.

Start time: 18:00

Minutes

1. Chair detailed the protocol necessary for the meeting regarding Covid-19. The protocol for GDPR and data protection regarding names and addresses held was also detailed. It was confirmed that names and addresses would only be used for the purposes of the NHS Track and Trace.
2. Chair explained there would be two meetings held this evening to accommodate the number of members of the public wanting to attend. The second meeting is scheduled for 19:30 therefore this meeting will need to conclude at 19:15 to facilitate a prompt start.
3. Chair requested that any member of public when speaking may be asked to initially clarify if they are a resident or not for purpose of correct representation.
4. Chair explained that he is not here to answer questions but to direct those questions to the relevant group. It was emphasized that members of the public in attendance listen to the facts and ensure any comments are made in an appropriate respectful manner throughout.
5. Personal Introduction given by Chair detailing his 24-year background and association with Sarratt.
6. Background of KGV recreational site including historical background. Site was given to the village in 1932 and designated as an outdoor leisure facility. As such it is owned by SPC as Custodian trustees. The maintenance is overseen by KGV management committee.

7. Chair read out quote from 2012 Parish Plan that included a public survey.

   “Whilst the younger age ranges are well catered for in terms of activities offered in the parish, older teenagers are less well served.to some extent the problem especially for 14 – 16-year old’s and the 17+ groups may experience transport difficulties which restrict their ability to visit activity centres outside the parish.”

8. It was also detailed that at that time the parish did not feel they had enough say which is why tonight’s public consultation has taken place. This is the first time this issue regarding lack of activities for the older age group has been publicly discussed. This issue has been bought up by a young parishioner who wrote to the council requesting a Skatepark and therefore the meeting tonight is to talk it through.
9. Chair gave process/agenda/objective for the evening:
   For the parishioners to understand the issue at stake.
   To hear who ‘Freestyle’ are and what they do.
   Proceed to answer questions.
10. M.O.P requested that it be minuted that this is not the first time the skatepark has been discussed. It has been discussed previously although not as an official meeting due to the level of intensity of feelings in the community.
    Chair confirmed that this meeting tonight was the first official meeting.
    M.O.P stated that he did not want to hear about the Skatepark and Freestyles presentation.
11. M.O.P requested that the audience should listen to the presentation by Freestyle because the audience does not have enough information on the proposal.
12. M.O.P requested information on who would be making the final decision on the skatepark and when this decision will be made.
    It was also asked why it was not put out to tender Chair informed M.O.P that no decision has been made and this is just at public consultation stage.
    M.O.P said that it is very presumptuous to have Freestyle presentation before the public have decided if they want a skatepark or not.
13. Freestyle Introduction. Purpose is to make community’s active by hearing what community’s want and what they do not want and to educate the myths surrounding skateparks. Their job is to find out what the communities hopes, dreams and fears are. There was a tender process that freestyle won. No decisions have been made, freestyle is not being paid for this presentation, this is public consultation is part of the whole process. Freestyle’s goal tonight is to listen to what Sarratt want and what Sarratt needs. There is an obvious provision for young people under 7. Great provision for the older generation, great provision for sporting individuals ie football pitch, tennis court. 86% people do not engage with traditional sport and leisure. Football pitch attracts 15% of the people. The 86% that do not participate in football, tennis etc want facilities that enable the use of bikes, boards, scooters, parkour. Overwhelmingly skateparks are for children who do not have the confidence for competitive sports, it is a non-judgmental activity.
    
14. Questions and answers.
15. M.O.P – requested Freestyle clarify the tender process as previously told by freestyle that they are non-profit making. Request for Freestyle to supply residents with pictures of parks that they have designed and built in the area to show condition these parks are in now as great concerns over maintenance of the park and the funding required.
    Freestyle replied that part of the grant process is to demonstrate identify and propose how the maintenance will be funded for at least the next 10 years. If this is not sustainable the funds will not be given.
    Cllr Thorp replied regarding the tender process. Confirmation there was a tender process by Sarratt Parish Council. Confirmation this process was robust.
    Freestyle confirmed that this tender process was to be engaged in an opportunity. There was no promise of money, no contractual obligation, if the money is raised then Freestyle has the right to build it. Freestyle is a social enterprise.
    Cllr Thorp reported that Sarratt Parish Council responded to a letter from a 14-year-old who unfortunately felt too intimidated to attend tonight due to the rhetoric that has been spreading around the village. The appropriate procedures were followed by the Council. Freestyle was chosen for several reasons. There is approx. £6k in the Council budget that could go towards this, and the rest will have to be raised if the project goes ahead.
16. M.O.P stated there would be a massive impact on her parents’ life if a skatepark goes ahead due to their location next to the recreation ground. Noise, anti-social behaviour being at the forefront that makes this proposal unacceptable.
    M.O.P detailed there was a protest raised by the people who were outside a 200m circumference of a park in Harpenden and their protest was rejected because of that reason.
    In comparison to their site and Sarratt KGV site within the same 200m circumference there is approx. 40 houses in proximity.
    Main concerns are proximity and noise.
    Freestyle responded stating that these are understandable and valid points of concern. When designing a park all comments and fears are considered. This could be looking at designs that could limit the amount of noise.
17. Freestyle explained that regarding anti-social behaviour, skateparks decrease anti-social behaviour not increase.
    PCSO Steve Jacobs- size of Sarratt KGV park is much smaller than other parks in the area.
    Steve Jacobs interrupted by much noise from the audience.
    Unable to minute the audiences heated discussions due to lack of accuracy created.
    M.O.P questioned PCSO Jacobs about stabbings that have been reported at local parks and gang related crime.
    PCSO Jacobs confirmed a stabbing had taken place at a park in Croxley Green but not in the Skatepark and confirmed that it had no connection to the users of the skatepark although social media reported incorrectly.
    M.O.P questioned if KGV is correct location for skatepark.
    PCSO Jacobs confirmed that Sarratt will not attract anti-social behaviour due to its size and location.
18. M.O.P delighted to have debate. However, one question that has not been asked is if Sarratt wants a skatepark.
    No survey results have been circulated.
19. M.O.P asked if there is a need for a skatepark. How many people have been asked.
    Cllr Thorp. Replied all stats will be given to the audience to take home. From the customer group of 7- 17year olds, 70 young people in the village said they would love a skatepark.
    M.O.P stated this cannot be true as no one asked her children.
    Cllr Thorp confirmed that all households in the village had posted through their door an outline to the proposal detailing the survey and how to take part by either online, telephone or email.
20. District Councillor Ciaran Reed questioned the wording used regarding the questionnaire being sent to Sarratt or Sarratt Parish.
    Cllr Thorp confirmed the paper-based proposal was circulated to every household in Sarratt Village.
21. Freestyle stated that the community should be looking ahead at least 30 years when deciding about what the needs are as well as in the current time. It needs to be looked and build for 30 years’ time looking at what younger people want generally as well as what they want and need now.
22. M.O.P raised question again on who will be making the ultimate decision, who will be responsible, who will be signing this off.
    Chair explained the group assembled to examine a letter that was sent to SPC comprises Sarratt Parish Council who are custodians of KGV Fields, KGV Management Committee who manage day to day running of the field and SCCF.
    Cllr Thorp confirmed that the 4 representatives here who are representing those mentioned bodies are running the Feasibility study around the process. The evidence will then be looked at and a recommendation will be made that will go back to a Parish Council meeting, KGV meeting and SCCF meeting for ratification or not. M.O.P concerned that majority of members of these bodies are all Pro and therefore not a true representation of the village.
23. Chair asked Cllr Thorp what the positives and negatives in terms of responses to the survey. Cllr Thorp- 65% of all respondents were pro skatepark, 11.65% were against.
    Freestyle confirmed that all negatives were captured.
    Simon Foot KGV Committee – confirmed questionnaire went to every household plus it was on SCCF website and Social media. It was also confirmed that if it is felt that the survey should be more widespread then they will do that.
    The feasibility group want to hear different ideas and views.
24. District Councillor Reed stated that one of the main concerns is the democratic nature of the process. D Cllr Reed stated he is the only elected person in the Parish and his concerns are that the parish Council that is uncontested elections and therefore not voted on by the community of the parish. D Cllr Reed said SPC was not an elected body and that it did not have the remit to make the decision.
    Cllr Thorp, representing SPC stated Cllr Reed’s comments were incorrect on both counts.
    Cllr Lowry stated that his co option process was robust and he had to go in detail of his experience, and as part of the process was rigorously tested for the position.
    D Cllr Reed explained that he is not criticising the parish council however when there is a Parish Council that claims it has the legitimacy of the people by doing a survey, that is significantly different to claiming having legitimacy from a democratic election.
    Simon Foot – explained it was a Feasibility survey and not a vote.
    Minutes could not be recorded due to audience disorder.
    D Cllr Reed asked whether the parishioners would have a vote on how their public money will be spent regarding the £6000 that is available.
    Minutes could not be recorded due to audience disorder.
25. M.O.P states there has been a figure of £70k circulating around the village for the build cost. Confirmation is needed on where the funding will come from. Where will the money come from to maintain and protect it. Who will pay for graffiti removal, maintenance, protection, CCTV, security?
    Simon Foot agreed these questions were valid and all these questions regarding maintenance security etc need to be factored into the feasibility project to see if it is sustainable. If it is not, then it will not be feasible.
26. Freestyle explained that the maintenance is 0 as it is made of concrete.
27. District Councillor Reed asked to reflect on the comments made 2012 Parish Plan where it was identified there was a gap in activities for 7 – 17-year-olds. As a parishioner living in Sarratt D Cllr Reed explained that his social life was not based in Sarratt but at his school.
    D Cllr Reed asked the question as to whether this skatepark will provide for the social needs of the teenagers in this village.
    Freestyle responded by stating that needs are for local provision. A place that does not rely on mum and dad as taxi that increases pollution. For climate and social reasons, it has to be local.
28. M.O.P explained that he along with others have bought a house next to a social amenity should know that it does not come with the right to veto a proposal.
    There will be no vote, it will be decided by the bodies who are here and have organised this public consultation. 70 young people have expressed that they want this skatepark. It was already identified in the previous 20102 Parish Survey there is a need. KGV fields is the only sports field. It is the only recreational facility for this parish.
29. Chair thanked the audience for their participation, Freestyle and Clerk.

Meeting Concluded at 19:16

PUBLIC CONSULTATION – Friday 9th July 2021

KGV ALIVE – SKATEPARK

Meeting 2

Present:

• Chair – Mike Edmund
• Freestyle Collective – 4 representatives
• SCCF – 1 representative Angela Coakley
• KGV Committee – 1 representatives – Simon Foot
• Sarratt Parish Council – 2 representatives – Cllr Peter Thorp & Caroline Owen – Clerk

In attendance:

• District Councillor Ciaran Reed
• 23 Members of the public (M.O.P)

Meeting held at KGV Pavilion, KGV Fields, Sarratt.

Start time: 19:33

Minutes

1. Chair detailed the protocol necessary for the meeting regarding Covid-19.
   The protocol for GDPR and data protection regarding names and addresses held was also detailed. It was confirmed that names and addresses would only be used for the purposes of the NHS Track and Trace.
2. Chair informed audience that there has already been one meeting this evening. All minutes will be displayed on SPC website and SCCF website and the results of the survey will be circulated at the end.
3. Chair requested that any member of public when speaking may be asked to initially clarify if they are a resident or not for purpose of correct representation.
4. Chair explained that he is not here to answer questions but to direct those questions to the relevant group. It was emphasized that members of the public in attendance listen to the facts and ensure any comments are made in an appropriate respectful manner throughout.
5. Personal Introduction given by Chair detailing his 24-year background and association with Sarratt.
6. Background of KGV recreational site including historical background. Site was given to the village in 1932 and designated as an outdoor leisure facility. As such it is owned by SPC as Custodian trustees. The maintenance is overseen by KGV management committee.

7. Chair read out quote from 2012 Parish Plan that included a public survey.

   “Whilst the younger age ranges are well catered for in terms of activities offered in the parish, older teenagers are less well served.to some extent the problem especially for 14 – 16-year-olds and the 17+ groups may experience transport difficulties which restrict their ability to visit activity centres outside the parish.”

8. I It was also detailed that at that time the parish did not feel they had enough say which is why tonight’s public consultation has taken place. Chair confirmed this was the first official public meeting to discuss the issue, which arose when a young parishioner wrote directly to SPC to request a skatepark.
9. Chair gave process/agenda/objective for the evening.
   For the parishioners to understand the issue at stake.
   To hear who ‘Freestyle’ are and what they do.
   Proceed to answer questions.
10. Freestyle introduction. Purpose is to make communities active by hearing what communities want and what they do not want and to educate the myths surrounding skateparks.
    Their job is to find out what the communities hopes, dreams and fears are. There was a tender throughout process that freestyle won. No decisions have been made, freestyle is not being paid for this presentation, this is public consultation is part of the whole process. Freestyle’s goal tonight is to listen to what Sarratt want and what Sarratt needs and to hopefully mitigate any fears.
    There is an obvious provision for young people under 7. Great provision for the older generation, great provision for sporting individuals ie football pitch, tennis court. 86% people do not engage with traditional sport and leisure. Football pitch attracts 15% of the people. The 86% that do not participate in football, tennis etc want facilities that enable the use of bikes, boards, scooters, parkour. Overwhelmingly skateparks are for children who do not have the confidence for competitive sports, it is a non-judgemental activity.
11. Questions and Answers.
    M.O.P asked if teenagers of both genders in Sarratt have been specifically addressed to find out what they actually want.
    Cllr Thorp replied that out of the customer group of ages 7 – 18s 76 said they would like a skatepark, 20 were neutral, and 3 were negative. The repondents in that category were evenly split between boys and girls.
    M.O.P asked how many of those children live in Sarratt.
    Cllr Thorp stated that 87% of the 240 responders live in Sarratt and surrounding villages.
    M.O.P questioned why we are asking those who live in surrounding villages. Cllr Thorp reminded the audience that the questionnaire was only posted through the doors of those residents of Sarratt Village.
12. Freestyle commented that female participation in skateboarding is not down to the activity its down to the aesthetic. Part of the objective is to capture the young girls and to get them active prior to senior school. Freestyle continues to state that it is imperative that skateparks are placed next to playground to enable progression.
    M.O.P raises the government figure that says 85% of skateparks are used by boys. Why are we doing something just for boys.
    Freestyle state that the reason behind this figure is due to bad design and that councils tend to position skateparks away from playgrounds.
    Chair requests that Cllr Thorp answers whether the gender split from those surveyed was 50/50 and is it therefore credible to say that as many girls as boys want it?
    Cllr Thorp is unable to confirm this from the statistics at hand. It was confirmed looking at totality that 155 people out of 240 wanted the skatepark, 57 were neutral, 28 negatives.
    Freestyle confirmed the figures are a robust piece of data.
    SCCF representative, Angela Coakley stated that it was decided that the question of what gender are you would not be asked instead it could be offered.
    There was the option of Male/Female/Rather not say. 1.Cllr Garvey applauded Freestyle for their park in Oxhey. Most fears are about anti-social behaviour. Cllr Garvey continued to say that as a private tutor she has had the opportunity to ask 14 – 16-year-olds if they want a skatepark and none of them were interested nor did they fill out the survey however when asking the 7 – 11 age group there was interest. Question is are we addressing the right target group.
    Freestyle stated their designs are focused on the concept of increasing participation and health.
    Cllr Garvey asked about how it will be maintained. Costing.
    Freestyle responded that an application is only approved if demonstration of proof that maintenance is sustainable.
13. 14-year-old M.O.P states that he would love to have a skatepark here. The perception unfortunately is that young kids trash things. That is not reality. Skate parks are not anti-social and its not an issue.
    Chair confirmed privately with the parent of young parishioner that the audience would want to hear his personal views as someone who is in the age group at the heart of tonight’s discussions.
    PCSO Steve Jacobs - PCSO Steve Jacobs- size of Sarratt KGV park is much smaller than other parks in the area.
    PCSO Jacobs confirmed a stabbing had taken place at a park in Croxley Green but not in the Skatepark and confirmed that it had no connection to the users of the skatepark although social media reported incorrectly.
    PCSO Jacobs confirmed that Sarratt will not attract anti-social behaviour due to its size and location. Skaters tend to look after each other and their skatepark.
    Freestyle stated that users of Skateparks are often used by dyslexics and children who have mental health issues. If they don’t have a level of confidence, they do not want to be involved in competitive sports so they tend to go for skates, boards, bikes and scooters. They are also less likely to use drugs and alcohol.
14. M.O.P asked if there will be sanitary facilities?
    Freestyle responded that it will only be people from Sarratt using it and that it will not attract users from outside.
    Simon Foot confirmed that they had not considered feasibility for toilets.
15. M.O.P asked if KGV is the only place under consideration for the skatepark.
    Chair replied that KGV is the only recreational field in Sarratt. It was given to the village for recreational use.
    M.O.P continued to ask how large the park will be.
    Freestyle replied that the area has been mapped out on the field to demonstrate the comparison ion size to Croxley skatepark. Sarratt potential park is delineated by orange cones, Croxley in Yellow cones. It is approximately a ¼ the size of Croxley Green.
    It is approx. 220 sqm. It will come under Permitted Development.
    M.O.P observation is that it will be a huge amount of concrete.
    Cllr Thorp advised that the volume of concrete would be less than that used for the tennis courts.
16. M.O.P asked who will be responsible for supervising the park? Freestyle commented that the majority of skateparks are not supervised it is usually community policing that takes place.
    Simon Foot explained that the feasibility study will investigate and consider CCTV, locking of gates etc. M.O.P questioned how we can stop the older children using the park at 10/11 o’clock at night. How will that be policed.
    Chair explained that we are only at consultation stage, and these are yet to be discussed.
    Closing time and policing of this will be considered.
17. M.O.P requested for stats to demonstrate noise levels.
    Freestyle will send data. Reiterated that skateparks are not noisier than most other sports and recreational facilities.
    It will be designed to be silent.
    Simon foot requested that the data could be put into context with a comparison to a tennis game.
    M.O.P stated that it is the quality of the noise produced as well as volume that is important.
    Freestyle commented that all these considerations will be in stage 3 of the design, this is just consultation stage.
    M.O.P says she lives next to KGV and has never heard the swings etc, enjoy listening to the children playing however skateboarding noise is an annoying noise.
    Freestyle commented that 70% of skatepark users will be scooters, 20% BMXs,5% skateboarders, 5% inline skates. You will not hear the BMXs, unlikely to hear scooters due to their rubber wheels.
18. M.O.P asks what we are offering the older teenagers as it seems this is targeted at the younger ones. Should we not be asking them?
    Chair asks if there is anything in the survey data regarding the 17+ age group?
    Cllr Thorp replied that there is evidence that age group unfortunately did not respond.
19. M.O.P asked if the survey asked if there was anything they would want other than a skatepark.
    Cllr Thorp explained that the reason a Skatepark is being looked into due to a letter sent to SPC by a 14-year-old boy asking SPC for a skatepark. It was because of a direct individual request.
    Council then voted unanimously as did SCCF, KGV Management Committee, to look at a feasibility study. The results from the survey that are handed out are a direct result from the question “Do you want a skatepark?”
    Chair raises the point that is it appropriate that the target age range should be asked an alternative question “What do you want?”.
    Freestyle recommends that the users now should not only be the ones considered, but we should also be looking for decades to come.
20. M.O.P suggested climbing walls, bouldering etc. Other activities should be considered.
    Young M.O.P stated that due to knee problems he is unable to do climbing and football and feels physical ability should be considered.
    Simon Foot – Other facilities have not been explored but should and this will be part of the feasibility study.
    Freestyle comment that budget is large factor plus area/size of site. 1.M.O.P raised the question of where the budget is coming from?
    Cllr Thorp - £6000 is in the SPC budget of public held money and the balance will come from private donation and fundraising.
21. District Cllr Reed thanked all for input this evening. Is this proposal for Sarratt unique for the community or will users continue to travel elsewhere?
    Young M.O.P explained that it takes him 40 minutes to cycle to others.
    Freestyle – uniqueness is always accessibility.
    Chair- refer to the 2012 Plan regarding accessibility for young people. Freestyle – uniqueness is always accessibility. Chair- refer to the 2012 Plan regarding accessibility for young people.
22. M.O.P questioned PCSO whether the young people he tends to see at KGV are residents of Sarratt or do they come from elsewhere.
    PCSO Jacobs responds saying it is predominantly younger people from Sarratt rather than elsewhere. Sarratt does not attract young people from outside.
    Chair raises question that if something is built here will it increase police presence.
    PCSO – unless complaints come in then no.
23. M.O.P asked what the next stage is in the process.
    Cllr Thorp states that all information gathered and evidence from this consultation and the survey will go to all groups for ratification or not. All evidence will be published.
    Chair suggests that all evidence and deliberations could be put on other platforms rather than just online for transparency and inclusivity.
24. Chair gives thanks to all contributors.

Meeting Concluded: 20:50

Skatepark Update

Two public meetings, independently chaired by Mike Edmund, were held on Friday 9th July at the KGV pavilion to encourage comments and questions to be raised and directed to the Freestyle Collective (the selected partner) and the project team which is conducting a feasibility process on behalf of Sarratt Parish Council, KGV and Sarratt and Chipperfield Community Foundation. Minutes of both meetings were recorded by the Clerk of the Council. The results of the survey, which every household in Sarratt had the opportunity to complete, were distributed at the meetings. These results were also independently audited by ME and confirmed as a fair and accurate representation of the data.

Survey Results The questionnaire was open for 30 days and comprised questions to obtain both facts (quantitative) and views and feelings (qualitative). There were 240 responses from across all age groups. 87% of respondents were local to Sarratt making the results a reliable and authentic snapshot of the consensus.

Responses included; from the project age group (7-18) 41%, presumed parents (35-54) 29% and (possible) grandparents (55+) 27%

1. 100% of all respondents, of all age groups and of both supporters and objectors, agreed that it’s important for young people to spend time outdoors

2. 75% of respondents agreed that we, as a community, don’t provide enough for young people to do

3. Over 90% thought that we could provide more facilities at KGV for young people

4. 60% currently leave the village to find outdoor activity for their children

Qualitative comments received were as follows;

• 65% support the project
• 23% are neutral
• Less than 12% are against the project
  
  
• 77% of 7-18 support the project, almost equally shared between boys and girls
• 68% of the 35-54 age group support the project
• 44% of the 55+ age group support the project

Below are links to the minutes and the full survey results.

The next stage in the process is for the project group to combine concerns raised in the public meetings with concerns raised in the survey and to meet with Freestyle to discuss if and how these concerns may be addressed. The project team will then present a recommendation which will be considered at the August SPC meeting (Wednesday August 18th) and subsequent KGV and SCCF meetings for ratification or not.

Surface Dressing in The Green

Between Sarratt Road and The Green by Sarratt Hall Farmhouse

Between Wednesday 7 and Friday 9 July Works between 09:30am and 4:00pm

*We need the road clear of parked vehicles in order to complete the work.

If you need to use your vehicle, please make sure you move it outside the road closure area shown at least 30 minutes before we are due to start working.

We are able to relocate parked vehicles, if necessary, using a specialist removal vehicle. If you or a member of your household are unable to move a car out of the works area due to shielding, self-isolation or for other reasons, please phone Leon Zaman 07712 490183 during office hours 09.00 – 5.00pm and we will arrange to have the vehicle professionally relocated free of charge.

What you need to know: We would like to reassure you that we are following Government advice relating to construction work and social distancing to minimize the risks related to Covid-19.  

We politely request that all residents respect our workforce and follow social distancing guidance when passing the works area or engaging with our on-site team.

Vehicles may not be allowed access through the road closure during the works, except for emergency vehicles. We are unable to provide information of which part of the road will have access and when. Please speak to the on-site team on the day who will be able to advise on access or contact Leon Zaman 07712 490183 during office hours 09.00 – 5.00pm.

Where it is safe to do so, the County Council may be able to exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances in order to meet its public sector equality duty.

Please refer to the yellow signboards on your street to see the exact dates, timings and permit number. Any date changes to these works will be communicated on the yellow signboards at either end of your street and at www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/roadclosures

These works are weather dependent and may be postponed if poor weather is forecast.

Details of any disruptions to bus services can be found at www.intalink.org.uk/timetables (search for your service). If you're unable to find this information, please call our customer service centre on 0300 123 4050.

Further information: • The permit number for these works is SD-CWY210904 & SD-CWY210904A full details can be found at www.one.network • If you have any special needs/circumstances that you would like to discuss with the team then please contact Leon Zaman 07712 490183 during office hours 09.00 – 5.00pm or CSCHighways@hertfordshire.gov.uk - By phone on 0300 123 4047. We understand these works may be an inconvenience to you, however, we ask you to support us as we make the necessary improvements.