Frankie & Benny's, Unit 7, ST16 2HQ
Restaurant and premises Decided 17 May 2024 CHG101070212 Kathia Cheng/Colliers International - Laurence Hatchwell
Figures are as stated in the decision; a dash means the document does not state that figure.
What was argued and what the tribunal found
The Appellant, The Restaurant Group, sought deletion of the Frankie & Benny's restaurant from the 2017 rating list on the grounds that reconstruction/soft stripping works rendered it incapable of beneficial occupation and therefore no longer a hereditament. The tribunal found that whilst sanitary ware and some lighting had been removed, the property remained capable of beneficial occupation; the removal of fixtures constituted soft stripping intended to make the property more marketable, and any defects were capable of remedy by a reasonable landlord under the statutory repairing assumption. The appeal was dismissed as the subject property remained a hereditament.
Summary generated from the decision text and checked against it. The appellant was The Restaurant Group, represented.
Grounds argued
- State of repair or deletion
- Building works or disturbance nearby
- Evidence
- Photographs, Expert report
- Cases cited
- Newbigin v Monk; Jackson v Canary Wharf Ltd; Aviva Investors v Bunyan; Saunders v Maltby; Porter v Gladman Sipps; Hewitt v Telereal Trillium Ltd; Williams v Scottish and Newcastle Retail; Codexe Ltd v Lamb; Reeves v Valuation Tribunal for England; Rossendale BC v Hurstwood Properties
- Hearing
- 8 May 2024
Similar decisions
- Club Couture, 139 Newport Road, ST16 2EZ — Allowed in part, 23 Nov 2020
All decisions in Stafford Borough Council · Pubs, hotels and leisure nationally
Is your own rateable value in line?
A free check compares a property with the assessments around it and says plainly whether there is anything worth pursuing.
Check a propertyThe tribunal’s decision in full
Decision © Crown copyright, published by the Valuation Tribunal Service under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and reproduced unaltered. This site does not index the names of private individuals that appear in decisions. Information, not advice.