2, 6, 16 or 72?

On 14 November 2025, Cotham School published a press statement claiming that its playing fields had been ‘targeted’ in a ‘destructive vandalism attack’. It said that its contractor had discovered ‘extensive damage to newly installed fencing… with large sections deliberately destroyed in a manner that prevents repair or reuse’, concentrated in one specific area:

We immediately noticed disparities in the claims being made and, over time, we’ve gathered more facts via freedom of information requests. So we’re putting the various claims and documents here for you to judge for yourself. What are the real facts? Why did Cotham make these claims?

To start with, let’s take a look at what was going on at the time.

Cotham School’s contractors finished building its new weldmesh perimeter fence at Stoke Lodge on 31 October 2025. This time they added several additional spurs of fencing outside the playing field fence to stop people walking a circuit around the edge of the field. Complaints were made to Planning Enforcement about these spurs, and in particular that the spur of fencing going towards Ebenezer Lane (at the Cheyne Road end of the field) was not permitted development because it didn’t enclose anything. Within just a few days, the panels in that side spur were removed. We don’t know who removed them, but we do now know that an officer from Planning Enforcement attended the site with the school’s planning consultant on 5 November to assess all reported breaches – so it’s an interesting coincidence that the panels were removed before that inspection happened.

Side note: It’s not the end of the story for that spur of fencing – it was subsequently replaced by the school using triple-spiked palisade fencing on 9-10 February 2026. And it has now been completely removed by the school’s contractors on 17 April, apparently (again) in response to Planning Enforcement. Unlawful fencing has been installed and removed twice, in the root zone of a protected tree.

Meanwhile, Cotham School’s first planning application for eight, 6m high CCTV surveillance towers at Stoke Lodge was published on 7 November 2025.

Then, on 13 November, two further single-panel gaps appeared in the perimeter fence – one at the Cheyne Road end of the field and another close to the mobile CCTV compound at the top end of the field. Someone had cut two panels out.

So when the school made public claims about ‘extensive damage’ on 13 November near the Cheyne Road entrance shortly after making that CCTV application, what exactly was it claiming had happened, and what was its main concern?

• The school’s chair of governors, Sandra Fryer, wrote to John Smith, Executive Director of Growth & Regeneration at Bristol City Council, and to Councillor Andrew Brown (Chair of the Economy & Skills Committee) on 13 November with 9 photos which she said showed ‘the extent of vandalism’ over the previous week. FOI link here – if you know Stoke Lodge, you will see that 3 of the photos are of the gap at the top end, 3 are of the gap at the bottom end, one is of the no-longer-existing spur and two are non-recent (including a panel lying on the ground with months’ worth of weeds growing through it). This email was sent at 18:24 on 13 November, and is titled ‘Stoke Lodge Mobile CCTV – NOW URGENT’.

• The school’s chair of governors, Sandra Fryer, also made an Instagram post on the same day with a photo of the single-panel gap near the Cheyne Road entrance. In her post, she claimed that there were 15 more gaps in the fence with panels ‘cut out and dumped on the ground’. There is no evidence of 16 gaps, as was immediately made clear in the comments on her post (see below). Nor did her email to John Smith and Andrew Brown that evening indicate that ‘the extent of vandalism’ was anywhere close to 16 missing panels.

• The school informed its insurer (which is essentially the Department for Education) at 16:01 on 13 November that there had been damage overnight to 72 fence panels and posts. It subsequently informed the insurer that there was no CCTV footage of the damage – despite the alleged widespread damage all around the playing field being conducted under the watchful lenses of 27 CCTV cameras. Cotham School submitted an insurance claim in relation to the damage it said had occurred, but as you can see below, it was also keen to get a supporting letter from the insurer for its CCTV application.

So – Cotham School’s Chair of Governors provided photos to BCC of 5/6 gaps (2 panels cut out and 3/4 unscrewed from the unlawful spur); she claimed on social media that 16 panels were cut out; and the school filed an insurance claim for 72 damaged panels and posts. The thing that appears consistent is that the school was keen to get support from both BCC and the insurer for its CCTV application, based on its claims of vandalism.

On closer examination of the evidence provided by Cotham School to back up its insurance claim, it turns out that it provided 72 photos, not photos of 72 separate damaged fence panels/posts. Because there was no massive, widespread attack on the fence. There were not 72 damaged fence panels and posts. Nor, as claimed by Ms Fryer on the same day, were there even 16 panels cut out and dumped on the ground. There was the spur outside the fence (which the school itself has now removed completely, again following complaints to Planning Enforcement) and there were two single-panel gaps in the playing field fence.

Ultimately, the school’s insurance claim resulted in a payout of £2,084 less the excess of £500. That doesn’t match up to 72 damaged panels and posts either, does it? We understand the payment related to the Ebenezer Lane spur of fencing outside the perimeter fence – so this unlawful spur has now been paid for twice by the insurer (aka the Department for Education). The school has subsequently dismantled the spur and used the panels of spiked fencing to extend its secondary line of fencing on the field. And who paid for that very expensive (and potentially very dangerous) spiked second line of fencing in two corners of the field? We now know that it wasn’t the Department for Education, either as capital funding or as an insurance payout – so presumably that money came straight out of school coffers, even though there was already fencing in place and the gates were locked 24/7. A prime example of fence not sense – especially when the spikes are on the inside where Cotham pupils occasionally do PE!

These facts are all now in the public domain and you can draw your own conclusions. In a world of alternative facts, it’s always worth looking behind the headlines.