But the VAT increase should not be seen solely in the context of heritage
buildings. While it might satisfy the Treasury’s (and the EU’s) desire to
harmonise a fiendishly complex regime, it is economically barmy. What they
should be doing is lowering VAT for the labour element of all repairs to
stimulate the building trade. At the moment, the construction of new
buildings is charged at a zero rate of VAT, provided they are for a “social
purpose” – mainly homes. But most repairs are charged at the standard rate
of VAT, currently 20 per cent. Until the Budget, alterations to listed
buildings (though not routine repairs) were zero rated. Now everything will
be subject to 20 per cent from October 1.

But how does this make any sense? If the Treasury wants a level playing field
then why not harmonise VAT on all home repairs, maintenance and improvement
work at the lower rate of 5 per cent? After all, the Government desperately
wants the building industry to kick-start the Chancellor’s somewhat
perfunctory growth strategy. This was why ministers risked alienating their
supporters in the countryside by championing changes to the planning laws.

But given the high cost of new homes (a report yesterday said there were only
two towns in southern England where they are considered “affordable” for
average earners) would it not be better to encourage the renovation of
existing houses, especially empty ones?

Research by the information consultants Experian suggested that a 5 per cent
rate – allowable under EU single market laws – would deliver a total
stimulus of £17 billion to the economy by 2019 (far more than the £6 billion
lost in revenue) and create more than 60,000 jobs in construction and its
suppliers. Surely this would be a more rational approach: it would boost
employment, increase the tax take and get the economy moving.

Instead, there will be less money to fund the work, fewer jobs, higher welfare
bills and a fall in tax revenues over the long term. Moreover, VAT on
repairs acts as a disincentive to the timely maintenance of buildings, which
adds to the long-term cost and discourages the re-use of vacant and
under-used properties.

In the meantime, our priceless heritage will continue to crumble away. So that
was a good idea, then.