When is demolition not demolition?

[Nemesis]

http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/news/stalbans/display.var.1806734.0.architect_found_guilty_of_destroying_house.php

 

[biffvernon]

He got a conditional discharge :roll:

 

[Nemesis]

Yup.... but had to pay prosecution costs Maybe the building really didn't make too positive a contribution to the conservation area!

 

[Moo]

Did anyone notice this bit in the article?

"The complete demolition was carried out after the builders discovered they could avoid a £100,000 VAT charge by constructing a new house on the site instead of making alterations."

 

[Nemesis]

Yup. And true. New build attracts no VAT. Refurb does.

 

[biffvernon]

I wondered whether that was quite right. Was it £100 000 VAT charge or VAT on a £100 000 build, i.e. £17,500?

 

[Nemesis]

Well, whichever, the point is that VAT is still payble on repairs, and not on new build, despite all the lobbying.


http://www.selfbuildabc.co.uk/self-build-news/self-build-renovation.htm


Worth reading.

 

[Ian Bond]

The way I read it, the building costs would have been around £571,000 or thereabouts, with the finished house expected to be worth twice that.

Shall we have a whip round to help them out with the fine, so that it doesn't eat into the meagre profits?

It makes me sick, having to pay all the VAT on essential repairs (not even improvement) when people get away with profiteering like that.

 

[Ian Bond]

"The demolition was discovered on November 24, 2005 by a planning officer from St Albans District Council and work on the £1.2 million house was suspended"

It was sold in January 2004 for £1.2M, they were given permission to partly demolish, but it seems it was worth totally demolishing it and starting again!!!

:shock:

 

[Ian Bond]

Here's a pic of the house in question...

http://www.herts24.co.uk/content/he...ewshadnew&itemid=WEED01 Nov 2007 12:23:12:193


And a little more detail on what's gone on...

Who knows what the original intention was? Whatever, it is a terrible waste of time, money and resources all round. And I'm not gonna waste any more of my time on it - it was interesting though ...

 

[Penners]

Well, whichever, the point is that VAT is still payble on repairs, and not on new build, despite all the lobbying.

The article is very unclear on that point:

Whalen was engaged to take control of the project on behalf of the owners Robert and Pauline Munro who had received planning permission to knock down part of the house and make alterations.

The complete demolition was carried out after the builders discovered they could avoid a £100,000 VAT charge by constructing a new house on the site instead of making alterations.

The phrase "making alterations" sounds to me like the kind of work that would avoid VAT (when carried out on a listed building).

 

[Nemesis]

This wasn't listed, but was in a conservation area, and looking at it, I think made a 'positive contribution.

However, following the Shimizu judgment, ceratin works of demolition are deemed lawful. HM Gov has failed, despite frequently claiming it would, to put things right.

http://www.persona.uk.com/smithfield/Core_docs/CD-29-7.pdf



Not a good situation. Here, however, its seems full demolition was carried out. But the fine and the VAT savings mean that one was worth the other.

 

[Penners]

Beg pardon - I thought it was listed. Must have some more reading lessons.