Campaigners against a city centre lap dancing club have vowed to fight on after Cheshire West and Chester Council’s refusal to renew its licence was overturned at London’s High Court.

Owners of The Platinum Lounge are delighted they will be able to continue to trade although they must now submit a fresh application.

But city centre ward councillor Samantha Dixon said: “I maintain that the historic Rows are not the right location for a lap dancing club because of the unique and special character of the area.

“Furthermore, the council’s policy makes it clear that sex entertainment venues (SEVs) should not be located in residential  areas.

“The Bridge Street, Commonhall Street, White Friars area is becoming more and more residential, so on behalf of the residents I represent, I will continue to make the case that there should not be an SEV in this location.”

The company which owns the club, Bridgerow Limited, fought the decision at London’s High Court, pointing out that, since the venue opened in 2005, there had been no licensing issues, no warnings, and not one single complaint from residents.

But Mr Justice Stuart-Smith overturned the licensing committee’s decision on the sole ground that it was taken in breach of the council’s constitution.

He said it was clear the decision should have been taken by a three-member sub-committee, rather than the full committee of 15.

The judge said some locals, in particular the Whitefriars Residents Association, had been ‘vocal in their opposition’ to the club.

And the committee had fairly performed a balancing exercise between the club’s interests and the objections of neighbours in an area which was becoming less commercial and more residential.

But he concluded: “The decision of September 17, 2013, must be quashed because of the serious procedural irregularity which led to it being taken by the wrong persons.”

Bridgerow’s renewal application must now be considered afresh by a sub-committee of three.

Council spokesman Ian Callister said: “The judged ruled in favour of the authority in regard to five of the substantive issues. He found against us on the sixth – a procedural matter – and counsel will be examining that decision.”