Clash In The Attic

For once, this terrible pun is not from the Phantom's pen - but I couldn't think of a better title for this post.

I was sent a press release from Chris Merriman, the human face of a new internet project, based in that hot-bed of rock & roll, Charlton, which aims to create an archive of rock memorabilia - the kind of thing that most of us tend to squirrel away in files and boxes never to be looked at again until the House Clearance brigade move in.

We're talking archive and bootleg footage from gigs, fanzines, interviews and photos of rock legends (and presumably not-so-legendary pop acts...) that you might have knocking around that you'd like to see earn you a bit of cash.

Rokpool already has a load of previously unseen footage/photos etc of famous stars like Zepplin, Clapton and The Beatles, but it's looking for more before its launch to the cyberworld. I assume it will be a bit like a cross-media photo library. If you're holding something really interesting, it could earn you an absolute mint, and this sounds like a very exciting project.

Caveat:

The talk of 'unique licensing arrangements' in the press release intrigues me. A word to the wise. Read any contracts VERY carefully, and don't be afraid to challenge aspects you don't like.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that Rokpool is anything other than completely up-front and honest - and I think it will be a valuable addition to the music world - but it is (or will be, at least) part of the wider Music Business. Any music contract should be scrutinised (and, if necessary, argued) down to the last comma.

But, caveat aside, this looks like a brilliant idea. If you're sitting on a gem, contact Chris at info@rokpool.com

The Phantom Rants AGAIN...

Anyone seen that rather odd article in Time Out this week where they, somewhat spuriously IMHO, postulate on what would happen if the Olympics were cancelled? (What next, I wonder - "What would happen if London had a plague of toads, the Thames ran blood or the Martians landed..?")

The article, a featherweight piece clearly borne of the silly season, doesn't really seem to address the issue at all - with many of the movers and shakers interviewed not seeming to be directly answering the question, making me suspect it was cobbled together out of a bunch of old interviews. The equestrian events in Greenwich Park - the one place that many actually WANT to see stopped - isn't mentioned at all. Not once.

Interestingly though, one of the talking heads is Chris Roberts. "It doesn't worry me," he boasts. "We're taking responsibility for the legacy as a borough. Councils must remember, after 2012 there won't be an Olympic Delivery Authority or London Organising Committee, so it's up to them and the residents."

Darn tootin,' Chris. The very fact that they know damn well that they won't exist after 2012 gives bodies like the ODA and the LOCOG no incentive whatsoever to create anything that will last beyond 2012. They will be expecting the councils and the government to clear up their mess as they plough through anything and everything to get their own goals achieved.

So what if a few trees get uprooted? We gave you a good Olympics. I know we said that we had 'no plans' to cut down trees or dig massive holes - but ain't you heard of Contingency, mate? It got to the eleventh hour and they had to come down. It's a shame and all that, but - well - you wanted the Olympics. You can grow some more. We delivered it for you on time. So what if there's no legacy? Not our problem, mate. All you asked us to do was get you to the ball, Cinderella. We got you there. Now it's struck midnight; the party's over. You find your own Prince Charming. We're off to collect our fat cheques and then going on a well-earned holiday. Sweep up that glass from that shattered slipper, will you, eh..?

There's a protest rally this Sunday in the park, organised by the Facebook group Stop The Olympics Destroying Greenwich Park. Meeting at 2.00pm at Blackheath Gate, expect a lot of angry people. I tend to be of the opinion that even if you hold the milder view that if the Equestrian events are going to happen inthe park, they must be heavily-regulated, it's worth going along. Bargaining is always about asking for more than you actually want, so you can concede small points to get big ones....

The Phantom Gets a Reply From Boris...

...or not, as the case may be. As expected, I got a minion, sending me the email equivilant of a xeroxed reply to my letter about the Equestrian Events in Greenwich Park. I repeat it verbatim:

To whom it may concern

Thank you for contacting the Mayor regarding the use of Greenwich Park for the London 2012 Olympic Equestrian events. However the selection of 2012 sporting venues is solely the responsibility of London's Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) with the agreement of the International Olympic Committee. The Mayor is aware of your concerns about the Park and has asked me to pass them on to LOCOG.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic - hand-washing to the Nth degree.

Honestly. I don't know how much more hands-off this new mayor can get short of hot-footing it back to Henley and using a rubber-stamp on the end of a very long pole.

Royal Teas

Ok - a long - but important one today...

I guess most of you will have heard by now that Royal Teas have finally lost their long-running battle with Greenwich Council over their ability to run the cafe properly - or indeed at all, given the restrictions they will now be put under. If you're anything like me, the thing had been rumbling on so long that you would have thought that the charges had been quietly dropped, but sadly not. Thanks to the small-mindedness of individuals, we are in grave, possibly imminent, danger of losing one of our best cafes.

I don't know about you, but I managed to get myself very confused about this over the years - a bit like when you start watching a situation, then a crisis, then finally a war break out over a period of months in the news. You're drip-fed info on a piecemeal basis - at first it seems like a storm in a Fair Trade teacup and you take little notice. By the time it's got serious, you're already lost in minutiae.

So I dropped a line to Raymond Voce, owner of Royal Teas, to get the record straight, which is why I didn't talk about this as soon as I heard (thanks to everyone who sent me the bad news - I guess I'd always rather know than not.) I'm going to give you pretty much what he told me - the bits in greeny-blue are his words. The rest are mine. This isn't quite over yet and there are things best whispered by a Phantom...

So, for the moment, over to you, Raymond...

"I have been at the cafe since 1999. From the onset I tried to get planning permission to knock down and rebuild our delightful toilet.

After a number of applications I got permission. Two weeks after getting this permission I received a letter from the Council saying I was not allowed to continue cooking on the premises. This is 2002. We appealed this decision and had a hearing at the Council in 2004. Before this we were required to draw up an extraction system for the kitchen, which we did and received a letter back from Environmental Health that our system was acceptable.

So the hearing took place no mention of the system was made by the Inspector during the eight hours - included a site visit - and we didn't bring it up because we thought it was no longer an issue. When we received his report it stated that we had lost and the majority of it was about how our proposed extraction system was not good enough. We felt that the
Inspector was at fault because to our minds his job is to ensure all the relevant points are discussed which he didn't do.

We had no chance to put our points across re this system. So we felt we didn't have a fair hearing and took this matter to the high court.

Are you still with me? I know, it is kind of boring. We lost at the High Court last year. The judge said we should have known the extraction system was always an issue. Incidentally, this took so long to be heard because Greenwich Council took forever to get their paperwork in.

We next applied to the Court of Appeal. An intermediate judge gave the go ahead as he was very concerned about the Councils behaviour. That takes us up to last week where we once again lost.

This time the conclusion was that if I had represented myself at the original Council hearing I would have had a very good case against the Inspector but as I took along a planning consultant - a professional - the onus was on him to raise any appropriate points. So how I see it is, the Inspector's job changes dependent on who else is there.

Doesn't seem right. Our Barrister is thinking of challenging this decision in the House of Lords - our case has now set this new precedent. It never ends!

Back back back.

The Inspectors report when dissing our extraction system made references to Public Services division section blah point blah. None of us had heard of them and it took a number attempts ringing the Council to find out who they were.

Well, they no longer existed and were superseded by two Environmental Health Departments. We had only got approval for the system from one of them. You would have thought that when we sent the plans to the address we were given by planning that they would ensure all relevant departments would see it. My point being with regards to the Court of Appeal decision, the planning Department itself didn't seem to know about this Public Services Department and the two new strands of the Environmental Department so how would an outsider, even if he is a 'professional,'know?"

Phantom, here, guys...

So anyway, While all this was going on, various individuals started coming out of the woodwork. People living around, complaining. So we basically have people moving in right slap bang over/next to a cafe and complaining they live right-slap bang over/next to a cafe. Raymond points out:

"At no other time have we received any other written complaints while I have been there."

Eventually the cafe got permission to extend - it's not very big - really just to improve that toilet (though I have to say as tiny, creaky old loos go, I don't hate it - there are far worse I could mention...) and maybe get an extra table (some pushchair space for those sodding buggies would do me.)But as Raymond says

"Obviously I can't spend that sort of money while this uncertainty is hanging."

So these individuals turned to moaning about the cooking smells. The main problem seems to be with the hideous smell of bacon. From a vegetarian cafe. Nice one.

Raymond Voce, admits that "Royal Teas does have a 'no cooking' condition attached to it."

But - and stay with us here - "because we have no commercial equipment and the soups and lunches we make are done in bulk and then reheated as ordered we were able to continue. We had over the years any number of people from Planning down and we were told just not to extend the menu, which we never have.

After getting permission for the extension it seems someone saw our file and encouraged the Council to take action even though we had been doing this since 1990."

The sundry individuals who hadn't noticed that they'd moved in next to a cafe, suddenly had the shock of their lives. Heavens! It seems they'd accidentally moved in by a pub too!!! That pesky pub and naughty cafe were clearly hiding when these people went to view the property. So now, the brewery were involved. Raymond is throwing his hands up here.

"Myself and the tenants at the pub really do our utmost to keep the impact of our businesses minimal to the surrounding area. We are very good neighbours, even if I do say so myself.

So at the Council hearing we applied to remove this 'no cooking' condition or alter it and specify exactly what we would be allowed to produce. Both suggestions were rejected."

So what now? - House of Lords possibly. Just to mention here that the Barrister has acted for us free of charge. He is an angel. The Planning Consultant after the Councils hearing also offered his service free of charge.

I am now in the process of trying to alter the menu. I need to hire a kitchen elsewhere in order to prepare the soups and lunches and I will also have to hire another person. Extra costs that are going to be difficult to cover. At the weekends when we make most of our money 90% of people will have one of the breakfasts that I am no longer able to produce.

At the Council hearing much was made of cooking and reheating and the distinction between the two. I am able to reheat I am told. We spent twenty minutes discussing whether cheesy beans on our menu was cooking or reheating. No conclusion was reached. It is difficult planning a menu when it is so vague as to what I am allowed to do. I have been told by planning that toast is cooking but I have also been told that it is ok for me to bake cakes. Makes no sense to me. We are listed as a tearoom and coffee shop surely I should be allowed to make toast."

What to do, folks? It worries me that some kind of nasty legal precedent seems to have been set here, allowing mean individuals up and down the country to move in next to places and then force them to change because they don't like it. All I can say is that I hope Raymond doesn't give up on the legal process. I don't believe he intends to.

"I love the cafe and our customers are great. There are not enough independent cafes as it is and so every effort will be made by us to keep this one going."

Here's one thought, Raymond - though it's not a cheap one...

As a dedicated East Greenwich-er, I have to tramp through the Park (what a hardship) to get to you. There's a lovely empty shop next door to Theatre of Wine (opposite the Arches) - why not have that as your "cooking facilities" - let's face it - no one can complain about the smell - it used to be a fish shop. At the same time, open it as Royal Teas II (or some other wonderful pun - I'm sure my readers will come up with some corkers for you) - and maybe a lovely wine-tasting shop in the evening, in conjunction with ToW????

Ok, I'll take my Phantom Fantasy Hat off now. Good luck.

In the name of Fairness, if any of those individuals who've been moaning about having moved into a place next door to a cafe and pub that were hiding when they viewed their new gaff want to tell me their side of the story, I'd LOVE to hear it...

No Wheels On My Waggon...

Bad news, folks.

An anonymous journalist tip-off (oooh-er!) has just informed me that this Saturday's grand opening of the Greenwich Observation Wheel has had to be postponed.

From what I can gather, it's got itself stuck in The Hague, so hasn't actually arrived yet.

As regular readers will know, I've been hopping from foot to foot waiting for this particular circus to come to town, and here in the Phantom Household, we're all mega-disappointed.

Poor old Greenwich Foundation. Hope they're insured. I feel sorry for them - it makes them look flaky when I can only assume that it's those dastardly Dutch. They just can't bear to part with it.

My contact doesn't know when we'll finally wrest it from Netherlandish hands, but in the meanwhile, don't go down there on Saturday hoping for a ride into the skies...

Greenwich Time

I hadn't intended starting the week with a grumble, but the fluffy piece I was working on has proved to be, ahem, A Bit Long, and, given that Real Work awaits, it will have to hang on until tomorrow.

So in the meanwhile, I'd like to ask your thoughts on this.

Lord knows, I didn't vote for Boris Johnson. And yes, I'm scared. Really quite scared. But there's one thing I applaud him for. He's axed that godawful waste of innocent trees, The Londoner.

A grotesque puff-piece that gave virtually no information worth having and acted merely as one big photo-opportunity for Ken to show off, it is, IMHO, a good saving. I just hope he puts the money to good use.

But of course, this brings me to our own local waste of innocent trees. What on earth is Greenwich Time good for? Photos of Chris Roberts posing with a piece of litter over a waste bin. Photos of Chris Roberts with a group of schoolchildren tidying an old person's garden. Photos of Chris Roberts handing over a giant cheque to some charity. Photos of Chris Roberts shaking hands with some obscure 'community leader.' Photos of Chris Roberts on his own.

What does it actually do? What purpose does it serve that taking out a couple of pages in the News Shopper couldn't? There's no actual news. The features smack of 'filler;' the list of available council houses only goes to show how few there are and how needy you have to be to actually qualify to get one.

Even the addition of Tony Lord (I like reading Tony Lord and have missed him since I don't get The Mercury any more) smacks of desperation. Greenwich Council needs to face up to the fact that they don't have enough to say to warrant what I swear is a now-weekly paper (and if it isn't, it feels like it.)

Greenwich Time is an irrelevant waste of money, paper and Tony Lord. I would happily see it go and the money spent on something worthwhile. I don't care what. Something that would actually benefit the community.

What do you think? Do you agree? Is it an easily expendable extravagance?

But maybe you actually like it? Maybe you wait by the door for your regular fix of Chris Roberts piccies, ready to cut out and paste into your fan-album? Tell The Phantom...

BTW, as I was writing this I thought "I bet GreenwichWatch have something to say about this." And they do. Check it out here