[2009] UKFTT 58 (TC)

TC00037

Appeal Number: MAN/08/1037 

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL

TAX

DECISION NOTICE
Rule 35(2) The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 

	ROLAND HALL	Appellant

	- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR
	HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE and CUSTOMS	Respondents

			Tribunal: MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE	 (Chairman)
				      GILLIAN PRATT                        (Member)	  

Sitting in public at Manchester on 8 April 2009

The Appellant appeared in person

David Griffiths counsel instructed by the Solicitor’s office of HM Revenue & Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2009

DECISION
The Appeal
1.	The Appellant was appealing against HMRC’s decision dated 14 March 2008 rejecting a Do it Yourself Builders (DIY scheme)) VAT refund claim in the sum of £3,216.26 pursuant to section 35 of the VAT Act 1994.
The Dispute
2.	The dispute concerned the application of  note 18 to schedule 8 of group 5 of the VAT Act 1994 which provides that
“A building only ceases to be an existing building when
a)	demolished completely to ground level; or
b)	the part remaining above ground level consists of no more than a single façade or where a corner site, a double façade, the retention of which is a condition or requirement of statutory planning permission.
3.	The Appellant contended that he met the requirements of note 18, and was, therefore, entitled to a refund under the DIY scheme.  
Summary Findings of Fact and Reasons
4.	The Appellant purchased a pair of semi-detached farm cottages with the intention of replacing them with a single dwelling. The local planning officer advised that it would not be acceptable to demolish the properties and build a new detached home. According to the planning officer any building works should be in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, and that the external visual appearance of the two cottages from the road should be retained.
5.	The Appellant submitted a planning application which involved the construction of a new building which retained the front façade of the cottages. Permission was granted for the development but it did not specify the retention of the front façade as a condition or requirement of the grant.
6.	The Appellant contended that he set out to submit plans that would be approved, and that the reason given for the planning permission, namely, that the new building would have no material impact on the neighbourhood and be in keeping with the host property was clear confirmation that any other proposal would have been rejected. The Appellant supported his contention with a letter from the Chief Planning Officer which effectively stated that planning permission would in all likelihood have been refused if the plans for the new building had not retained the front façade. In short, the Appellant submitted that by any reasonable interpretation the retention of the front façade was an explicit condition of the planning permission.
7.	A notice of full planning permission is a public notice which may be relied upon by third parties. Thus the express terms of planning permission must be construed objectively as between the four corners of the document. The intentions of the applicant and the local authority are not relevant to the interpretation of the planning permission. Extraneous evidence of the meaning of the express terms  of the planning permission may be admitted if it is included within the four corners of the permission by express incorporation (for example in accordance with ) or the express terms are ambiguous on the face of the document (see: R v Ashford BC ex parte Shepway [1998] EWHC Admin 488 and Carter Commercial Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 1994).
8.	The Tribunal finds that the planning permission for the Appellant’s development did not include an explicit condition or requirement specifying the retention of the front façade. Further the express terms of the permission were not ambiguous on the face of the document. In those circumstances the Tribunal was not entitled to go beyond the document to construe the terms of the planning permission.
Decision
9.	The Tribunal decides that the retention of the front façade was not a condition or requirement of the planning permission for the development. The Tribunal holds that the requirements of note 18 to schedule 8 of group of the VAT Act 1994 were not met, in which case the Appellant was not entitled to refund of VAT under the DIY scheme. The Appeal is therefore dismissed.

MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE
   TRIBUNAL JUDGE
      RELEASE DATE: 22 April 2009

Notes
10.	A party may apply for full written findings and reasons, and must do so before making an application for permission to Appeal, provided the application is made in writing and received within 28 days after the date that the Tribunal released the decision notice.
11.	A party wishing to Appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal must seek permission by making   an application in writing to the Tribunal within 56 days of being provided with full written reasons for the decision. An application for permission must identify the alleged error(s) in the decision and state the result the party making the application is seeking.