THE NEW Yorker magazine once ran a competition asking readers to suggest the smallest thing anyone could possibly imagine. Entries included Pol Pot’s sense of compassion, Richard Nixon’s moral compass, Ronald Reagan’s record of academic achievement – but if that contest was run again today, we would, thanks to Locog, have something smaller than any of those.

You see, in its latest plans for Greenwich Park, London 2012 has just announced what legacy the park will gain from hosting the Olympic equestrian events. It’s there in their latest “venue update” (page 3, if you’re interested, and you have access to a powerful enough microscope.)

“We are working with the Royal Parks and local societies,” they say, “to see what long-term improvements we can leave in the Park, including” (here it comes) “a possible new feature in the children’s playground.”

Ten months of partial closures, one month of complete closure, great disruption, the risk of permanent damage to a World Heritage landscape… and Greenwich Park gets in return a “new feature in the children’s playground,” sorry, a “possible” new feature in the children’s playground.

It sounds an awfully complicated way to procure a couple of swings. I’ve just moved to a better-paying job, I’ve got a bit of cash to spare, so let me put this counter-proposition to Locog. If we want to help the local kids, couldn’t we just cut out the Olympics and have a whip-round?

The playground pledge (I particularly liked that bit about it having been achieved with the help of the local societies – let no-one say that the Greenwich Society does nothing for Greenwich!) comes as part of a Locog consultation blitz ahead of its likely planning application in December.

The first act was last week’s joint meeting of the four societies – the Greenwich Society, the Blackheath Society, the Friends of Greenwich Park and the Westcombe Society – at which various offers described as “key concessions” were made.

The first not-very-key concession was to reduce the total closure of the park from the figure Locog first thought of (6-8 weeks) to their new figure of 4 weeks. That first figure, of course, was entirely notional. Could the cynic in me be allowed to suggest that it was deliberately put about in order to be able to offer this “concession” when things got sticky?

The important period here is not just the two to four weeks allegedly lopped off the closure time; not just the full month the entire park will still be closed; but the fact that very large parts of it will be closed for most of a year. You won’t find mention of that in Locog’s press release about the meeting last week – but it is admitted in the venue update document.

On page 5, this document states: “Work is likely to begin on the installation of a temporary arena in the north of the Park in March/April 2012. From this date onwards some parts of the park will be cordoned off.” At least a quarter of the park, in fact; and the vast majority of the lower park. The use of the words “cordoned off” implies little bits of tape – but this is a construction site. The cordons will be great big fences.

On page 7, it says that the “structures in the park” – that is, the arena and stabling – will be removed between September and October 2012. That is a closure of a very substantial area for up to seven months in 2012 alone. There will also be a test event in summer 2011.

What else? The Locog press release says that “no trees will have to be cut down,” but the venue update is much more interestingly worded. It says that “we will not be removing any trees from the Park (my italics.)” What I think this might mean is that, although the chainsaw will not be taken to any tree, some of those which stand in the way of the cross-country course could be uprooted and shifted to different parts of the Park. That would, of course, change the appearance of the Park – and quite possibly kill some of the trees that are moved. There are more ways of destroying a tree than cutting it down.

The venue update also says that “arboricultural experts have worked with us to ensure a [cross-country] course has been identified that will not adversely affect any trees.” But the map contained in the same document specifically says that the cross-country course shown has not yet been finalised and is only “indicative.”

They’ve been working on this course for three years now – Sue Benson, the course designer, was appointed in October 2006. If they still haven’t come up with a final design after all that time, and only two months before they’re supposed to be applying for planning permission, what does that tell us? It tells me that they are having great difficulty coming up with a course that fits and won’t do any damage.

Let’s examine another of the “key concessions” supposedly made last week. Clive Corlett, of the Friends of Greenwich Park, is quoted in one of the local papers as saying that “there are to be no road closures.” That is not, however, what the press release says. It says that “there are no planned residential road closures.”

Note the use of the present tense. All that statement means is that there are no closures planned at the moment – which, with three years to go, is only what you’d expect. It does not mean that plans for road closures will not be made in the future. The Olympic Delivery Authority is certainly being given the power to close those roads; it would not have been given that power if there were no intention of using it.

The important qualifier “residential roads” is also made – which suggests to me that they do, in fact, already have plans for the closure of some roads deemed “non-residential.” Finally, the sweeping powers being given the ODA allow them to do many things other than simply close a road. They will also, for instance, be allowed to ban parking, waiting, stopping. No assurances appear to have been given on this.

I said the fact that no cross-country course has yet been announced might mean that they can’t come up with a course. It might mean something else – that they do have a final course, and a detailed plan, but are hoping to delay publishing it as late as possible to minimise our opportunity to scrutinise those all-important written words.

Never forget that warm words, of the type spoken at meetings like last week’s, do not count. In dealing with bureaucracies like Locog and the ODA, the only words that matter are those which are written down. The planning application is where all those written-down words will be.

Until we see that actual planning application, any consultations Locog may undertake have very little meaning.

THE BIGGEST victim of last month’s council decision to reject the redevelopment of our market was not the market’s owner, Greenwich Hospital. The Hospital may be wounded, but it still has its hands on the real estate. The biggest victim was our so-called “conservation group,” the Greenwich Society, whose credibility has been destroyed.

According to its constitution, the purpose of the Greenwich Society is to “secure the preservation, protection and enhancement of the built environment and the landscape broadly within London SE10,” to “maintain the quality of life for those living or working in or visiting Greenwich,” and to “encourage high standards of development and architecture within the area.”

That seems clear enough. But over the market, unforgivably, the Greenwich Society appointed itself a PR cheerleader for the developers, for a plan which would have demolished the built environment, not preserved or protected it, and for architecture whose standards were more bog than high.

The Society’s glowing endorsement of the scheme as “admirable,” an “object lesson in how to gauge local opinion” and a “well thought through modern improvement” now looks deeply silly in the light of the council’s condemnation of the redevelopment as “unbalanced,” “detrimental,” “visually obtrusive,” and “out of keeping with its historic surroundings.”

The Greenwich Society’s spokesman, Ray Smith, appeared – complete with picture – in the developers’ glossy leaflets, enthusiastically endorsing the demolition. The Society faithfully peddled the Hospital’s untrue PR lines in the press, including the claim that the development had “75 per cent” support. On this website the Society’s chairman Tim Barnes claimed, quite falsely, that I’d said the market would be closed down. And he rubbished his opponents as “not representative” of local opinion.

It turns out, however, that it was the Greenwich Society which did not represent local opinion – unsurprisingly, since it made no effort whatever to find out locals’ views before it backed the demolition. Mr Barnes’ presumptuousness, assuming that whatever he and his executive committee decided was automatically the settled will of the local public, was one of the most unappealing aspects of the Greenwich Society’s behaviour.

The council’s decision is a sign not only that the Greenwich Society has lost its bearings, but that its views no longer carry any real weight. The developers thought the Society was one of their trump cards. The council simply ignored it.

Why am I saying all this? Partly because it needs saying – but partly because the Greenwich Society is up to exactly the same tricks about the year’s other big planning issue, the loony idea of holding the Olympic horse events in Greenwich Park.

Once again the Greenwich Society has forgotten the objectives so clearly stated in its own constitution. Once again, it has fallen naively into the arms of a large monied interest prepared to invite it to a few meetings, make it feel “consulted” and flatter its executive committee’s sense of self-importance.

Once again, the Greenwich Society has become a cheerleader for something which has no benefit for Greenwich and which carries quite substantial risks. Mr Barnes has said that I “seem impervious to the assurances that have been given [by LOCOG]…that there will be no lasting damage to the fabric of the Park or to the trees, and that the Park will not be closed off to users until the run-up to the Olympics in August 2012 when security considerations require closure for about 6-8 weeks.”

You might think I’m “impervious” to such assurances because they come from the same people who also assured us that the Games would cost £2.4 billion; or because no detailed environmental studies of the effects of the event on the fabric of the Park have yet been completed to back up such assurances.

But actually there’s a simpler reason why I’m impervious to those assurances – which is that they haven’t actually been made by LOCOG. On the contrary: London 2012’s director of sport, Debbie Jevans, has explicitly said that substantial parts of the park will be closed off to users for much longer than “about 6-8 weeks.” LOCOG has explicitly admitted that there will be damage to some trees – they will have to be “pruned.” So once again, the Greenwich Society’s PR tendencies are getting ahead of themselves; and once again, they appear to be backing a project on the basis of a false understanding.

The Society’s only response, so far, to its humiliation over the market has been to quietly remove all reference to its support for the redevelopment from its website. If the Greenwich Society is to survive as anything other than a joke, it needs to make much bigger changes than that. It needs to start honestly fulfilling the purpose it was set up for, to “preserve and protect the built environment and the landscape.” There can be no piece of landscape more in need of protection right now than Greenwich Park.

This coming Wednesday, the 23rd, the four local societies, including the Greenwich Society, will meet to discuss the Olympics in the Park with LOCOG. It’s a full members’ meeting – if you are a member of any of them, I urge you to attend. At it, we will see whether the Greenwich Society has learned any lessons at all from its recent experiences.