<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Green Building Forum - petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 22:34:51 +0100</lastBuildDate>
			<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3</generator>
			<item>
		<title>petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287477#Comment_287477</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287477#Comment_287477</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>jms452</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[What those in the industry think of this petition - seems sensible to me but I'm a retrofitter!<br /><br />I'd imagine that the bigger change is actually making new build only zero VAT only if it was to passive standard. In the short term this would create a skills gap but ultimately with notice would create skilled jobs and effectively make all new houses passive..?<br /><br /><br />The petition reads:<br />To create a tax incentive to favour retrofit instead of demolition and new build<br /><br />To 0% rate VAT on refurbishment projects total costs if they substantially reduce CO2e emission of the building; impose a 20% VAT for new build schemes, reduced to 5% if the build meets minimum passive house standard; to 0% rate VAT for all items on a regularly updated list of energy-saving products<br /><br /><br />https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/573207]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287479#Comment_287479</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287479#Comment_287479</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>LF</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[It's a yes from me]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287482#Comment_287482</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287482#Comment_287482</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>djh</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Sounds like a good idea in principle but what does 'substantially reduce CO2e emission of the building' mean exactly? In many cases that are discussed on here, it's viewed as impracticable/unreasonable/affects the aesthetics too much/costs too much to even meet current building regs. Why doesn't it say 'meet EnerPHit' or somesuch since it uses PH to judge new builds? Could I 'substantially reduce the CO2e emission' simply by ripping out a gas boiler, installing a mains-powered electric resistance boiler and sourcing a supply of 'green' electricity? Oh, and building a zero-rated pool at the same time <img src="/newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/devil.gif" alt=":devil:" title=":devil:" /><br /><br />I could definitely go for making new build 0% only for (certified) PH, but then I am biased. I'd also support reintroducing the 5% VAT rate for energy-saving products, or even making it 0%.<br /><br />I see the proposer is well-qualified to speak to construction issues <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Scott_Cato" target="_self" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Scott_Cato</a>]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287486#Comment_287486</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287486#Comment_287486</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>HollyBush</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Agree with djh<br />Also building regs should force all new residential to be passive or near to it.<br />Would like to see 5% or 0 VAT on "helpful" products - whether insulation, heat pumps etc]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287490#Comment_287490</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287490#Comment_287490</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:28:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>jms452</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[<blockquote ><cite >Posted By: djh</cite>Sounds like a good idea in principle but what does 'substantially reduce CO2e emission of the building' mean exactly? In many cases that are discussed on here, it's viewed as impracticable/unreasonable/affects the aesthetics too much/costs too much to even meet current building regs. Why doesn't it say 'meet EnerPHit' or somesuch since it uses PH to judge new builds? Could I 'substantially reduce the CO2e emission' simply by ripping out a gas boiler, installing a mains-powered electric resistance boiler and sourcing a supply of 'green' electricity? Oh, and building a zero-rated pool at the same time<img src="<a href="https:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/devil.gif" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/devil.gif</a>" alt="<img src="/newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/devil.gif" alt=":devil:" title=":devil:" />" title="<img src="/newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/devil.gif" alt=":devil:" title=":devil:" />" ></img></blockquote><br /><br />Indeed, ultimately it's a three line petition. If it could get there with scrutiny/refinement I'm signing it - after all the outcome is that it is debated in parliament - rather than put into law as is.<br /><br />In line of embodied carbon and climate urgency the current financial incentives to rebuild from scratch don't make sense to me.<br /><br />Arguably it could also be a more public friendly measure than the coalitions 'conservatory tax' with a similar end.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287498#Comment_287498</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287498#Comment_287498</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>djh</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[<blockquote ><cite >Posted By: jms452</cite>Indeed, ultimately it's a three line petition. If it could get there with scrutiny/refinement I'm signing it - after all the outcome is that it is debated in parliament - rather than put into law as is.</blockquote><br />True. On that basis I've signed it <img src="/newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt=":bigsmile:" title=":bigsmile:" />]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>petition on tax incentive to support retrofit</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287540#Comment_287540</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=16933&amp;Focus=287540#Comment_287540</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>fostertom</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Bloody obvious - done. Things can change - like the absurd zero VAT on alterations (but not repair and maintenance) to Listed Buildings, finally abolished 2012.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>