Residents in an Inverness housing community are demanding answers after areas of neighbourhood green space were offered for sale, reopening questions about who owns the land, who must maintain it and whether protections established more than 25 years ago remain effective.
The concerns have emerged at Milton of Leys, where signs advertising land for sale appeared around Sandalwood Drive and Redwood Avenue, prompting residents to investigate what was happening to the landscaped areas surrounding their homes.
According to Milton of Leys Residents Association, correspondence obtained from people dealing with the proposed sales suggests that amenity land could be purchased privately, with one resident reportedly told that all the green space on Sandalwood Drive was available.
Another resident was quoted prices of £8,000 and £12,000 for separate areas of land at Redwood Avenue.
The situation has left homeowners questioning whether land originally intended to provide lasting open space for their community could eventually pass into different ownership, and what that might mean for its future.
There is currently no evidence presented by the association of planning applications seeking permission to build houses on the affected areas, and the fact that privately owned land is being marketed does not itself establish any wrongdoing.
However, the questions extend beyond the sale signs.
Documents examined by the residents association identify Greenbelt Group Limited as the registered proprietor of specified amenity land at King’s Glen, while separate correspondence reportedly refers to another company, Rubislaw, as the owner.
The association says it has asked for an explanation of that apparent difference, recognising that registered ownership and the authority to market or sell land may involve different legal arrangements.
More significantly, the Land Register title examined by the association contains provisions requiring the relevant amenity open space to be managed and maintained as landscaped open space, subject to specified exceptions.
Those provisions raise questions about what responsibilities would continue if ownership changed.
The dispute also reaches back to the original development of Milton of Leys.
A Section 75 planning agreement recorded in 1999 established arrangements for landscaping, public amenity open space and continuing maintenance, with responsibility intended eventually to pass to a body approved by Highland Council.
Yet the maintenance arrangements which developed over subsequent years have encountered serious difficulties, with questions arising over homeowner payment obligations and the withdrawal of property factors.
In a final complaint response dated 24 September 2026, Highland Council acknowledged that the original Section 75 agreement remains in place, although it expressed doubts about the prospects of enforcing that agreement across the development as a whole.
Crucially, the council also recognised that some later planning permissions contain specific requirements for maintenance in perpetuity, which must be examined individually before conclusions can be reached about enforceability.
The residents association believes those outstanding questions need to be resolved before homeowners are asked to consider taking on new responsibilities for maintaining the open spaces.
For families who bought homes expecting landscaped surroundings and communal areas to remain part of their neighbourhood, the uncertainty is understandably troubling.
The association is now seeking further information from Highland Council, Greenbelt and Rubislaw about land ownership, historic approvals and the maintenance obligations attached to the affected areas.
What began with land sale signs has therefore developed into a much wider examination of arrangements established when Milton of Leys was first built.
And for residents, the central question remains a straightforward one: who is responsible for protecting the green spaces their community was promised?
