A millionaire businessman has infuriated neighbours by installing an electric fence around his £44.5million Notting Hill mansion without planning permission.

David Walsh, and his wife Jyotsna Chadha, bought their four-storey West London townhouse in 2023 and busied themselves making improvements. 

This year, the high flying couple erected a huge electric barrier around the borders of their palatial property, claiming it was a defence against the capital’s foxes roaming around their garden.

However, Kensington and Chelsea council officers - and some of their well-heeled neighbours - accused the couple of 'fortifying their home', making the heritage area look like a 'POW camp' and causing a 'public safety risk.' 

Properties on the leafy street where the couple live, sell for multiple-millions on average, however the couple's is by far the most expensive on the road. 

In retrospective planning documents, Mr Walsh - who is the founder of underwriting giants CFC, worth an estimated £2.5billion - argued that the inclusion of the fence was 'intended for fox prevention purposes.' 

Next-door neighbours told the Mail they were happy with Mr Walsh's fence and insisted it acted as a deterrent to keeping foxes from their property too. 

But objectors included the Ladbroke Association community group - which cited the danger the installation 'posed to groups of people.' 

 The large congregations the group is undoubtedly referring to would be the Notting Hill Carnival, which takes place just feet from the conservation area and brings over two million people into the suburb every August.

The controversial event, which regularly sees millionaire residents install make shift barricades in front of their homes is known to be a hotspot for anti-social behaviour.

This year, the Met Police said a total of 423 people were arrested across the two days - up from 349 last year, the highest total since 2019.

When the Mail visited the glamorous suburb this week, evidence of the scale of Mr Walsh's 'prevention measures' were seen - with the enormous electric blockade running the length of the boundary wall between his property and the next. 

However, when questioned as he was charging his £110,000 electric Porsche Taycan, Mr Walsh was defiant. 

He said: 'It's none of your business. I've got a wife who is very, very scared of foxes - you got a problem with that?

'The council has got very confused, they've looked at the wrong photos. We actually have a much better plan that is much more discreet, but they looked at the wrong photos.' 

However, his neighbours were less convinced with one telling the Mail: 'It is a bit silly really, you would expect that sort of fencing for POW camps - it's hardly going to keep out foxes.' 

Another, who lived in one of the flats opposite said: 'Yes, it is quite ugly and it seems a bit over the top? 

'Foxes can be a problem around here - but that's the same for everyone in London. We do sometimes have trouble with anti-social behaviour around the Notting Hill carnival - so maybe that's why he has done it?' 

A warning sign does currently exist along the fence and advertises that the equipment is designed to keep pigs, horses, sheep, cows and deer in pens - it does not show any foxes. 

The fencing is sited atop the boundary wall shared with his direct next-door neighbours, who said they agreed with Mr Walsh's stance. 

'We want him to keep it' the resident, who gave his name as Alex said, 'the foxes dig up our trash too.' 

But despite this sole vote of confidence, bosses at Kensington and Chelsea council saw differently. 

In official enforcement papers, the council said: 'The proposed electric fencing by reason of its design, height and prominent siting would read as an unwelcome addition, resulting in the fortification of the site and failing to preserve the character and appearance of the building, streetscene and wider conservation area.' 

Among the objectors were the Ladbroke Association, a community group aimed at protecting the architectural heritage of the wider conservation area and directly referenced the danger the installation posed to groups of people. 

A spokesman said: 'In our original objection, we expressed concern about the public safety aspects of this scheme and suggested that there should be conditions requiring a minimum strength of current and adequate public liability insurance. We were surprised that, in the officers’ report, this was considered outside the scope of the planning assessment. 

'Paragraph 102 of the NPPF says that planning policies and decisions should promote public safety by inter alia “anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards (whether natural or man-made) especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate”. 

'We would see “other hazards” as encompassing electric fences with which members of the public could interact, especially in urban areas. We do not see the reference to areas where numbers of people congregate as excluding other areas where there is a threat to the public. 

'We understand that planning officers believe that this paragraph is about large developments, but again there is nothing in the paragraph that indicates that small developments are excluded. We hope, therefore, that this matter can be reconsidered, as we believe that public safety should be seen as a material planning consideration in this case.' 

According to his own LinkedIn, Mr Walsh remains a 'significant shareholder in CFC' and is now 'an adviser to, and an investor in, various insurance and non-insurance businesses.'