I WAS surprised to read of the objections by various town councillors and others to the proposed fence around the extensive and presently open grounds at St Osmund’s School (Echo 14th January).

I served as a Governor to the school for over five years, and for most of that time I chaired the Finance and Premises Committee.

When I stood down in 2019 the need to secure the playing fields was still being addressed - but we had no money. A great deal of energy went into achieving efficiencies and savings, but the grant income was mean, and every time it was increased, most of the increase was skimmed off. by the Local Education Authority.

St Osmund’s is a fine school, well run by a dedicated Head, and teaching and support staff.

During my period in office, the school was asked to expand from 600 to over 750 pupils. To achieve this, a new, additional teaching block was built, funded by the LEA. This suffered multiple delays prior to the start, and took just under two years in all.

I was the main liaison Governor for this project, and it necessitated a lot of original thinking and energy on behalf of the staff, to keep the disruption to a minimum, and maintain security for the children. By the completion of the project the school had achieved the expansion in the pupil roll and had an excellent new teaching block. However, the remainder of the structure was old and demanded a lot of maintenance input.

Additionally, the superb ten acre playing field was still totally open and insecure. Unauthorised people could and did wander in and out of the grounds, and occasionally, a child would attempt to wander off. I am delighted to learn of the intention to fence the grounds properly and securely.

During my years as a Governor, I spent a considerable amount of time at the school, observing lessons, discussing matters with the senior leaders and attending governance and other meetings. Throughout that period I cannot recall ever encountering a single local councillor showing any interest in the school, or the many achievements of the school and the pupils.

It is therefore particularly interesting to note the excitement being generated over the height, structure or colour of a fence. A 1.8 metre chain link fence is unsuitable. 1.8 metres is too small and chain link can be easily climbed, damaged or cut, and a wooden fence would need too much maintenance.

I think the protection of the 750 children inside the fence dictates a strong, tall, difficult to climb, solid, opaque and low maintenance material - and green is a good colour. Perhaps the council might reflect that the secure protection of 750 children is more important than the sensibilities of some elected representatives.

In conclusion I would also like to express my delight at the excellent all-round education given by the school to two of my grandchildren.

Anthony Holt MBE

Dorchester