× Welcome to the Mollington, Backford & District Village Hall forum!

Tell us and our members who you are, what you like and why you became a member of this site.
We welcome all new members and hope to see you around a lot!

To make your contribution, you will need to be registered as a user. If you are not yet registered, please request user registration using the "Create an Account" link above.

Bar upgrade

  • barry_elsom
  • barry_elsom's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
3 years 1 day ago #59 by barry_elsom
Replied by barry_elsom on topic Bar upgrade
What you say in your reply is completely the opposite of what VAT notice 708
lays out. It states that in order for the new buildings to be zero rated, and it particular mentions Village Halls,would be to remove every vestige of the existing structure, and start with a cleared site. The new construction would be identically in profile to the existing planning application, though there would be more flexibility with the interior layout, and should not require a new planning application, as the demolishing of the existing structure, which is as you say "time expired"would be an improvement over trying to retain parts of the old building, which may fall down. anyway, once the bull dozers get to work. At best it would probably require a building regulations amendment, which is going to be required anyway, before construction can commence, and should be able to be obtained well within the existing schedule, which must be at least 18 months, from now, prior to commencing building works, it will probably take that time to gather the necessary finance, except we would be £120k better off.
More
3 years 10 hours ago #60 by chris_jones
Replied by chris_jones on topic Bar upgrade
We have already put our plans to HMRC and they have determined that our plans do NOT constitute a “New” building, but they do constitute a “Replacement” or “Extension” and therefore attract 20% VAT.

To obtain the 0% rating, we would, as you suggest, need to demolish the entire site and rebuild from there. This means that we would NOT be able to run any sort of operation to users for a period of at least (say) 3 months. In reality, this is likely to be at least six months to a year. This would undoubtedly result in us losing continuing revenue streams for (say) a period of up to 3 years following start of demolition, perhaps longer (para 3.2.1 of Notice 708). That would mean a significant reduction of revenue, while not similarly reducing our overheads.

The bar upgrade would NOT be anything other than 20% VAT.
  • barry_elsom
  • barry_elsom's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
3 years 8 hours ago #61 by barry_elsom
Replied by barry_elsom on topic Bar upgrade
Chris. Your entire argument is based on using the existing hall;


  • Whilst the new detached hall is built
  • Using the new hall whilst the existing hall is demolished

    In the first instance, there would be severe restrictions to 'Business as Normal' in the existing hall due to noise, heavy vehicle traffic, dust/mud etc., including storage of building materials, hopefully by then the tennis court will have been restored, with its new surface and games area, and you would not want to mess that up again, which leaves just the VH carpark!.

    In the second instance, the problem would be even more acute, as not only would access to the new hall be restricted, by all the above, but even more so, there would also be the problem of asbestos dust from the removal of the roof, and areas such as the bar, garden room, meeting room, would be un-useable, as it would become a hard hat area in addition to a hazardous site.
    It is appreciated that business would be lost, but your time span of several years is pessimistic, and if you discuss the building with prospective contractors, they will all say that they would rather build a structure from scratch, rather than try to marry in an old existing building, particularly the roofs, remember the trouble when that was tried with the Garden rm., and that this would probably extend construction time by several months.

    You say that there "would be no financial incentive for the loss of revenue, which I put at £20k., but this would be recouped from the VAT saving of £120K, not all of which would be required to rebuild the flattened buildings,

    However you and your committee have made up your mind on how to proceed, and I do not wish further to dispute that. I should like to call an end to this thread as we are going round in circles, and to wish you and everyone concerned the very best for the future, and rest assured I will still be a strong supporter of the Village Hall
    More
    3 years 5 hours ago #62 by chris_jones
    Replied by chris_jones on topic Bar upgrade
    Thank you Barry.
    • barry_elsom
    • barry_elsom's Avatar Topic Author
    • Offline
    • New Member
    • New Member
    More
    2 years 4 months ago #76 by barry_elsom
    Replied by barry_elsom on topic Bar upgrade
    This is rubbish. If we flatten the whole site and rebuild either on the same footprint or adjacent in the tennis court, then the new building would be zero rated for VAT. Ref: HMRC notice 708 Zero rated building information.
    More
    2 years 4 months ago #77 by chris_jones
    Replied by chris_jones on topic Bar upgrade
    Barry,

    You are correct in your assertion that if we build on the same footprint (after demolition) that the building will be zero-rated. However, we do NOT know that building on the tennis court will be, even if we demolish the existing building first. Notice 708 does NOT specify this circumstance.
    Time to create page: 0.362 seconds