S the dust settles on the latest twist in the proposed technology and enterprise centre, I have been struck by anomalies in the facts as reported.
I freely admit that my knowledge of the proposal is limited to reports in the local press, but being afflicted by an obsession with factual accuracy, my interest has been attracted by a number of contradictions.
Keith Knaggs was quoted as saying that theOldMalton site was ''supported by highways and drainage experts''. The developers were also reported as claiming ''there were no objections from the Ryedale Drainage Board or Environment Agency (EA)''.
My recollection of earlier reporting is that there had been no objections to the proposal byHighways or EA. Isn't it rather stretching the truth to describe a non-committal stance as support?
However, a letter from a group of Old Malton objectors claims that ''both the Drainage Board and EA expressed their serious concerns about the proposal in writing''.
This hardly comes as a surprise to me, given that a virtually impermeable expanse of over 22 acres would have been created, apparently with the primary means of drainage being the runnel under the A64 into Old Malton, which is already claimed to be at capacity.
In June 2007, temporary pumps were working flat out to stop Old Malton being flooded with surface water (ie land drainage, not river water). I'd love to know who Coun Knaggs's ''drainage experts'' are and why these expert opinions are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
The developers were reported as blaming the withdrawal of their scheme on ''national planning policy and the cost of a Government inquiry'', yet Di Keal later reapportioned the blame, saying ''the let's do nothing brigade has yet again scuppered a scheme that would have brought massive benefits to Ryedale''.
Strange, I thought the views of local objectors had been considered and overruled when Ryedale's planning committee passed the proposal, even though it was contrary to the Local Plan ie outside accepted boundaries of development land.
Reporting also led me to believe this to be the reason it was ''called in'' by the Government.
In view of the potential for profit, it was quite a surprise that the developers withdrew their application, particularly as they were quoted as saying ''the application is in line with the council's policies'' unless, perchance, a little bird had told them that the public inquiry wouldn't go their way.
Edward Legard said ''the alleged planning objections were not only factually inaccurate but also wholly misconceived'' and ''the loss of 800 jobs marked a very sad day for Ryedale''.
There can scarcely be anyone in Ryedale that wouldn't agree with the latter statement, but 800 was obviously the best possible estimate and probably somewhat inflated.
Given the rural location and very limited public transport access to this site, a high percentage would use cars, resulting in well over 1,000 vehicle journeys in and out.
A councillor quoted ''excellent access on to the A64''.
This conveniently ignores first accessing the A169, a very fast and busy stretch of road.
Factually inaccurate and misconceived? I think not. John Greenway MP evidently thought it factually accurate that ''it had been called in anyway because of the location''.
Last word goes to Di Keal with her sarcastic comment of ''ok - so let's do nothing again shall we?'' (I wonder who does get the last word in the Keal household).
RDC councillors need not look far back for a truly outstanding example to follow.
I refer to the headmaster of Malton School after the sports centre scheme was rejected.
No complaints, recriminations, blame, whingeing (not in public anyway! ). He just got on with finding a realistic and acceptable alternative.
MIKE POTTER, Pickering