Kevin and Marion Paton, who live at 18 Gadwall Grove, had been taken to court by six neighbours who argued the wall broke a real burden requiring “neighbour consent” for any new boundary structures. The sheriff at first instance agreed with the neighbours and granted an interdict. The Patons appealed.

The CALA-built development includes a Deed of Real Burdens stating that any new boundary walls or similar structures need the consent of all owners within 30 metres. The Patons secured planning permission in 2021 for a front wall and electric gate — but their neighbours refused consent.

The neighbours said the wall would spoil the open‑plan look of the street and encourage others to do the same. They also said it would reduce their enjoyment of their homes.

The sheriff accepted that argument and ruled that the neighbours had “sufficient interest” to enforce the burden.

Sheriff Principal Kate Dowdalls KC, sitting with Appeal Sheriffs Wendy Sheehan and Ian Cruickshank, said the sheriff had applied the wrong test. Under section 8 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, neighbours can only enforce a burden if the breach causes material detriment to the value or enjoyment of their own property.

The court found that the sheriff relied on neighbours’ personal feelings, not objective evidence, and that there were no findings that the wall would reduce the value of any neighbouring home.

The neighbours’ disappointment that the rules might not be followed was not enough to meet the statutory test, the court added.

Sheriff Principal Dowdalls wrote that the sheriff’s reasoning “cannot be correct”, adding that the neighbours’ feelings “provide no objective basis” for enforcing the burden.

The appeal was allowed, and the Patons were legally cleared of the neighbours’ claims. Because the neighbours had no “interest to protect”, the interdict preventing the wall could not stand.