Plans for a mesh security fence surrounding school playing fields are recommended for approval when it goes before councillors next week.
Varndean School, in Balfour Road, Brighton, wants to build a fence 550 yards or 500 metres long and 10ft or 3 metres high to create a “clearly defined and secure boundary”.
The secondary school said that the fence was a “standard measure” at most schools across the country.
Brighton and Hove City Council has received 36 objections to the application and five comments in support.
Concerns include loss of green space and loss of access to the school’s 3G pitch, the height of the fence and land ownership.
One anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “The fence needs to be precisely placed to allow the maintenance of the section of the field outside the fence by the ground staff.
“The fence will interfere with a previous green project by the school to plant trees. It needs to be placed to respect this previous initiative, even though I didn’t like that plan it should not be ignored in this new application.”
Another anonymous objector, whose details were also redacted by the council, said: “A high prison-style fence suggests that we live in a low-trust and dangerous community which is false.
“These are not small children who need to be kept confined for their own safety but mainly teenagers on the verge of adulthood.”
Supporters backed improvements to pupil safety and safeguarding, with one anonymous commenter saying: “Schools must be able to prioritise the safety and welfare of the children in their care.
“The proposed mesh fencing is also relatively unobtrusive compared with more solid forms of boundary treatment.”
Another anonymous supporter said: “The fence will undoubtedly be less visually appealing than open fields but the safety and reduction of absenteeism for students is understandably the priority.
“The loss of the green space for respectful use by members of the public is unfortunate but it is private property at the end of the day and there are still substantial grounds available for walking.”
The council’s Planning Committee is advised to approve the application at a meeting that is due to take place at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Wednesday 5 August. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
I went to this school graduated in 2001 and what I went through at that school is disgusting. The treatment not just from the students but the teachers as well. I was able to get out the school whenever. I wanted to avoid the bullying from my teachers and from the students. I quite literally fled the school. This fence is not only ideal but it’s necessary,
I went to Varndean and left in 2002, I didn’t experience what you did but it didn’t feel totally safe being so open, as a parent of a child who now attends and often leaves school without anyone noticing during break and lunch due to how open it is, I am in favour of the fencing, I also think that it should be closed for school use only and not used by the public as it is private land. So many people take their dogs and just leave dog poop around. Why should the school have to be checking everyday before PE lessons or after school activities to make sure dog poop isn’t going to cause health issues.
“A high prison-style fence suggests that we live in a low-trust and dangerous community which is false”.
Yet today a guy was convicted after turning up with a knife, machete and a can of petrol at a school and making repeated attempts to access the school grounds. He was thwarted by PRECISELY the kind of fence being proposed. It’s not about the children inside. It’s about those outside trying to get in who have a clear intent to cause harm/ death. The FACTS speak for themselves ( this is far from a singular incident in the last several years).
Do they look ugly. Yup.
Does their installation, invariably, lead to a lack of public use. Yup although there’s a caveat that leaving the Access gates unsecured after ( all) school activities are concluded has been made a planning condition numerous times and tbh I’d say that’s a reasonable compromise.
Should we need them. Nope.
Is the fact it hasn’t happened at this school or in this city a reason to bury our heads in the sand and claim that because we’d rather a thing wasn’t a thing that it was refused. Morally speaking there is ZERO justification to that argument.
Is it ALWAYS better to air on the side of caution and/or the path that proactively protects children instead of not doing something to protect them until, heavens forbid, something does.
Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. I respect there are several factors in play. My child is grown up, let alone not being a student at this school. That doesn’t change my instinct to place the, proactive and preventive approach that, protects just in case instead of not wanting it to happen and because of that it then happening despite the particular rose tinted view of the world we may prefer to be the reality of the matter.