To consider an application for a new Premises Licence in respect of Tomo Burger, South Quay, The Harbour, Paignton. 

Members considered a report on an application for a Premises Licence in respect of Tomo Burger, South Quay, The Harbour, Paignton. 

Written Representations were received from:

Oral Representations were received during the meeting from:

Decision:

That the application for a Premises Licence in respect of Tomo Burger, South Quay, The Harbour, Paignton be refused. 

Reason for Decision:

Having carefully considered all the written and oral representations, Members unanimously resolved to refuse the application, as they could not be satisfied on the evidence before them, that to grant the application as submitted, with that proposed by the Public Protection Officer by way of additional conditions, would result in all of the Licensing Objectives being promoted. 

In coming to their decision, Members considered what if any additional conditions could be added to that proposed by the Public Protection Officer, as opposed to a refusal, and determined that without sufficient soundproofing in place between the premises and the residential properties immediately above, there were no conditions which could be added to mitigate the highest probability of noise breakout emanating from within the premises that would directly undermine the Prevention of Public Nuisance, Licensing Objective.

Members further noted that whilst the outside area was intended to be used by patrons, there were no conditions proposed for this area of operation and in of itself, would add to noise nuisance and the undermining of the Prevention of Public Nuisance Licensing Objective, given the immediate proximity of the neighbouring residential properties. 

The video shown during the meeting by the applicant also evidenced to Members, that the premises had no sound proofing between the premises and the residential properties immediately above and having seen the footage, the Public Protection Officer confirmed that in his opinion that the premises did not have sufficient sound proofing and therefore this operation could cause a public nuisance. 

Members considered the appropriateness of sound proofing and the applicant confirmed that as a Premises Licence Holder, this was not achievable for him to undertake, due to the level of work and cost associated.

Members noted that there was a period when the premises did operate as a licensed premises.  The history of the complaints in respect of this premises operation were raised between 2021 – 2023.  It appeared to Members that the concerns remained as reported in 2021 when the first premises licence was granted, and Members became aware on the evidence before them, the conditions whilst previously imposed, were not adhered to in accordance with the premises licence granted, by the previous occupant and Premises Licence Holder.  This was resultant in noise emanating from within the premises to the residential properties above, due to the absence of required by condition for, sound proofing, prior to its operation as a licensed premises.

Noting the concerns raised, both in written representations and that heard orally at the hearing, and that the premises could accommodate between 70 and 80 patrons internally within the restaurant and with patrons drinking it is known that noise levels increase, Members could not be satisfied that the licensing objectives would be promoted and therefore unanimously agreed to refuse the application.