THE owner of a former vinery in the Rue des Marais, Vale, has offered his land to the Self-Build Group for a fifth of the market value. But under the draft Rural Area Plan, the derelict Planque Vinery could not be used for this type of development.

The two-and-a-half acre site has a long history of planning applications.

The Housing Department also wanted to buy the land if the relevant amendments to the plan were secured.

The Environment Department stood firmly by social housing policies and a high landscape quality designation, which would preclude self-build on this site

‘The idea of social housing in the broadest sense on this site goes back to the late 1980s,’ said Advocate St John Robilliard, who was representing the owner, Reginald Renouf.

‘The reason for this representation is a relatively new development in Guernsey – the coming into being of the Self-Build Group.’

The group had 30 members in March last year and has grown to represent 120 people. Advocate Robilliard said that self-build schemes were already taking place in Jersey and Alderney.

‘The major objection to the current plan is that it does not provide for a licensing system, as opposed to an ownership system.’

For a self-build scheme to be viable, it needed at least 20 houses, which would be based around a common building form, he said.

‘The Self-Build Group cannot identify suitable sites in the urban area where this can take place.’

Mr Renouf had offered his land for no more than £20,000 per building plot. Advocate Robilliard added that the normal cost for a single one was anything between £100,000 and £150,000.

He said that the submission was not for a ‘free-for-all’, but control could be achieved by methods other than ownership by Housing.

Under the draft plan, affordable housing could be built in the rural area in exceptional circumstances, but only by the department, or by a housing association in conjunction with it.

‘Self-build is an individualistic movement by its very nature and while clearly it should be subject to normal planning and building control and licensing, it is motivated by the goal of ownership, which would be lost if owned by the States.’

An amendment to the social housing policy to include ‘bona fide schemes acceptable to the Environment Department’ was suggested.

Further amendment to the policy, to allow social housing on sites not in or adjacent to States-controlled housing, was also put forward.

Advocate Robilliard also outlined why the vinery was suitable for development, citing factors such as services already in place and the cost involved in clearing it for agricultural use.

The departments both agreed the policy should remain as it was written.

‘The Environment Department does not consider development on a site like Mr Robilliard’s is in the best interests of the island,’ said Alistair Coates, who warned against suburbanisation of the rural area.

He added that even if the planning inspector did consider a policy for self-build was necessary, the department would ask if it was still precluded in areas of high landscape quality.

Residents in the lane objected to the plan. Although many were supportive of the self-build concept, they raised concerns about the amount of traffic and the loss of open land.

Housing was set to report back to the States on self-build in March.