be carried out will only rarely be appropriate in the case of a permission for a change of use- although it is surprising to see how often such conditions are imposed in practice. Secondly, the courts are becoming increasingly unsympathetic to challenges brought only after a long period of time has elapsed. Thus the normal way to challenge a condition would be by way of an appeal to the Secretary of State, and then within six weeks a court challenge under section 228 to his decision. In this instance, by contrast, the condition was first imposed in 1991, but only challenged in 1998 - following the appeal - and a court might well take the view that, even if the challenge was otherwise justified, it would exercise its discretion to leave the condition in place. VAT The last case in this group concerns the liability to pay VAT, which - it will be recalled-is not generally payable on the cost of carrying out "approved alterations" to a "protected building" (that is, a listedbuilding or a scheduled monument) - see now the VATAct 1994, Sched 8, Group 6. "Approved alterations" are, by and large, works for which listed building consent or scheduled monument consent was required and obtained. I confess to finding this decision hard to understand; but) then) so is most VAT law Fradd's Meadow was a grade II listed house in Cornwall, which was severely damaged by fire. Authorisation was in due course given for works of reinstatement, including the demolition and removal of most of the remaining internal structure, and for an extension. The builder calculated his VAT liability on the basis that the works (except the extension) were zero-rated. The local VAT office considered that the works were too substantial to be repair and maintenance, and were thus "alterations"; but the Commissioners of Customs & Excise argued that much of the works, including in particular the reconstruction of the roof, was repair and maintenance, and thus standard-rated for VAT.The VATTribunal considered that the works were almost all zerorated; the Commissioners accordingly appealed to the High Court ( Commrs of Customs & Excise v Moorish [1998] EGCS 111). The Court considered that the Tribunal had erred, in that the purpose of the legislation was to exclude reconstruction, save where it could be described as alteration which was not repair or maintenance. Most of the works were therefore liable for VAT at the standard rate. I confess to finding this decision hard to understand; but, then, so is most VAT law- not for once, because of the inherent complexity of most tax legislation (or at any rate not just for that reason), but because of the daft lack of any intellectual basis for it. See page 6 of Context64 for a recent study of the problem; and wait until about Context 164 for a sensible response from the Treasury. Curtilage Finally, readers should note that the decision of the High Court in Skerritt's, noted in Context 64, relating to the extent of a building's curtilage, has unsrnp1isingly been the subject of an appeal, heard by the Comt of Appeal in December. At the time of writing, a decision is stillawaited; but the outcome will(hopefully) be noted in the next issue. Three good reasons for specifying Scotts bespoke timber windows ... 38 1: Quality 2: Performance Scotts combine modern technology with traditional craftsmanship to produce the highest quality bespoke sash and casement windows. Ideally suited to refurbishment, renovation or conservation projects, Scotts' windows blend in with existing installations and conform to the most demanding planning restrictions. So, if quality is important and you need the best - you'd better have one good reason for not specifying Scotts. Call the technical team on 01832-732366 for more information. 3: Good Looks J Scott (Thrapston) Limited. Bridge Street,Thrapston, Northamptonshire NN 14 4LR Tel:01832 732366 Fax:01832 733703 Context65 March2000
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=