If the occupier with the timber trellis had written in claiming it was more aesthetically pleasing we could have advised them to check whether a special resolution was passed approving the metal screens, and even if it was there may be a case for arguing it’s invalidity in that the by law doesn’t use abstract terminology such as “in keeping” but “place or hang any item on their balcony/terrace which is inconsistent with the aesthetics and appearance of the Building” which could be seen to indicate that either all of those with or all without the metal screen are in breach i.e. they have been deemed consistent with the aesthetics but clearly are not consistent with the appearance of all balconies. Could something be inconsistent with the aesthetics but consistent with the appearance?