Published: 8 January, 2014
by RICHARD OSLEY

IT’S official: a councillor with an important say on the rules placed on Camden’s strip clubs does not vote in certain ways to “appease his wife”.

A district judge has backed the Town Hall’s handling of lap-dancing operators Spearmint Rhino’s bid for extended hours and more relaxed conditions at its flagship branch in Tottenham Court Road.

The company launched an appeal at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, complaining that it had been harshly treated when a list of requested amendments to its licence was voted down.

The club raised concerns that the two key votes were made by husband and wife Labour councillors Thomas Gardiner and Maryam Eslamdoust.

The club had wanted to lift a list of rules including a ban on dancers drinking at work, a demand to keep the front doors closed and a ban on branded vehicles – two cars with pictures of dancers and logos on them – outside the venue.

The application failed when panel chairman Cllr Gardiner used his casting vote on a dead-locked committee to refuse the changes. 

The vote had been square at 2-2, with the two members voting against being Cllr Gardiner and Cllr Eslamdoust.

Spearmint Rhino suggested the process meant that one household had ultimately had the complete say on whether their request was approved or not.

When the case came to court just before Christmas, however, district judge Robin McPhee said no rules had been broken.

In his ruling, he said: “The appellant’s complaint was that one half of the committee, husband and wife, had taken one side and the other committee members were on the other.” 

The case has been going on since 2012 and followed complaints from residents in Paramount Court, the flats above Spearmint Rhino, that they were regularly disturbed by touts outside.

The company’s vice-president John Specht had told the council and then the appeal hearing that the changes to the licence conditions would not radically alter how it had operated for more than a decade.

District Judge McPhee said: “There is of course nothing inherently wrong in a husband and wife, or any civil partners, both being elected councillors to the same council. Such a situation is a frequent occurrence. With such a small committee it might have been better to avoid the situation which arose because it has given cause and a basis for comment. The efficacy of an evenly numbered committee is questionable but is certainly permissible.”

He added: “I reject the suggestion made by Mr Specht that the chairman was only exercising his casting vote to appease his wife; there is simply no evidence for that assertion.”

Cllr Eslamdoust said after the case: “It’s the council’s responsibility to ensure all sex establishments are properly run in accordance with our policy, something that no well-managed establishment should have any trouble adhering to. I’m delighted that, after careful consideration, the judge upheld the council’s original decision to grant a licence with standard conditions attached. This is a clear vindication of our policy to residents, communities and performers.”

She added: “This case sends a message that the council will rigorously defend any challenges to our decisions which we feel will impact our wider community, whether this be disturbing local residents or detrimental to the rights of performers.”