The developer Indigo Scott is causing consternation in Chiswick where ‘An inspired collection of 25 studios,1 and 2 bedroom apartments ideally located to embrace the enviable charms of Chiswick’ are on sale at 510 Chiswick High Rd. Design journalist Barbara Chandler pointed out that it had a ‘HORRIBLE PLASTIC HEDGE’ on Twitter.
Sharon Scott, a Director of Indigo Scott says “the purpose of the hedge is to act as a privacy screen to the residents in the ground floor apartments, and to provide a ‘soft boundary’ to the building. “We were especially keen to provide something that fitted in with the glorious green foliage of the street” she says.
They considered various options and chose the plastic hedge because their experience has shown that “when you have multiple owners … it is difficult to provide a common care programme of watering and maintenance”. It is fire retardant and complies to British Standards (unlike natural hedging), she says and is fully recyclable at end of use.
Indigo Scott has installed many kilometres of natural hedging over the years, and this is the first time they have used artificial hedging in such a location. “Our decision was especially relevant this year during the drought – there was much talk of an imminent hose pipe ban, in which case a natural hedge would undoubtedly have died, as a newly planted hedge needs very regular watering”.
“Ludicrous” says Abundance
Karen Liebreich of Chiswick based charity Abundance London says: “It is quite astonishing that the developers at 510 Chiswick High Rd, Indigo Scott, can consider that a tacky plastic hedge fits in with the glorious green foliage of the street” which they claim to be “especially keen” to complement in this “prominent position” on the High Road! Their claim that the building’s owners would not be able to provide a common care programme of watering and maintenance is ludicrous, as this would be included in any sensible service agreement. Their further claim that there might have been a hosepipe ban which might have affected the hedge only serve to underline that they have chosen a tasteless plastic feature with no natural value in terms of aesthetics, bio-diversity or appropriateness simply because it’s cheap”.