The decision to approve the plans for the Blakelands warehouse, although controversial, was "a legal one", says Milton Keynes Council's leader.
There is currently an independent review taking place into how the warehouse along Yeomans Drive, effectively in a residential area, was allowed to double in height.
The final report, being written by Marc Dorfman, is pencilled in to be complete this month - although councillors doubt this will happen.
It has been a hot political topic in recent months. Milton Keynes Council has apologised to residents for the way it has dealt with the situation that has caused "unnecessary stress and anxiety”, with residents being offered “financial redress”.
Cllr Pete Marland, the Leader of Milton Keynes Council, has admitted that the council "messed up" - but has stood by the council’s position that the decision of the ‘non-political’ development control committee to grant planning permission in May 2017 had been made legally and after considering the impact on residents.
He told MKFM during an interview: "There is an independent investigation going on, and there is an independent investigation of the independent investigation. But every time it is looked at it comes back to say [that] the actual planning decision was legal, whether the residents want to say it was the worst decision ever that's up to them."
Cllr Marland said that those on the planning committee need to "take responsibility" for the way that they voted in 2017.
He also discussed the council's accountability and how the local authority "didn't keep proper records".
This relates to the way that Milton Keynes Council dealt with a Freedom of Information Request submitted by a local resident, Linda Wardlaw.
Last month, the general regulatory chamber tribunal, which looks into information rights, slammed the Council for how the information had to be “prised” out of it.
In a verdict described as “damning” the council’s practices were slammed as “unsatisfactory”.
Ms Wardlaw was told that emails from a planning officer were deleted and could not be recovered.
At the time, Cllr Marland repeated his apology saying that the council should have done better.
This is a belief that he still holds, as he told MKFM: "The council has, however, messed up. It didn't keep proper records, it didn't respond to the concerns of residents - in terms of when they made a complaint - very well."
Serious allegations have also been made with regards to how the planning permission was granted, with residents alleging the passing of brown envelopes - something which Cllr Marland says there is no evidence pointing towards.
In December, MKFM was told by Thames Valley Police that an assessment was being conducted to see if an investigation was warranted, although we did not know what was being looked into. It was also never revealed whether an investigation was launched.
Cllr Marland continued: "This is the point, it's that as far as I'm aware none of the investigations have said there isn't any evidence to point towards that sort of behaviour.
"It's not from councillors, the allegation is about officers, and actually officers that no longer work for this council. We have to be really, really careful about what people say.
"I say to people, in all honesty, if they have a criminal allegation they should present the evidence that they have got, that they are basing those allegations on, to the police. I believe they have done but at the moment there is no feedback from the police, and as far as I'm aware there is no investigation going on into any individual about inappropriate behaviour, particularly when it comes to money."
Cllr Marland concluded: "A lot issues have become overlapped and interwoven, and if people were to say to me 'do you believe that the planning department in Milton Keynes Council today is corrupt?' I would say absolutely not. But we always have to be vigilant about that sort of thing because that's why we have planning laws and proper processes in place.
"If people said to me 'do you think the planning department does a good job?' I would say in the vast majority of cases it absolutely does, but I would also say that if you put any decision of any organisation under the absolute forensic scrutiny (that this decision has been done) then there's always going to be a comma in the wrong place.
"There's always going to be something that people don't agree with, that's the nature of planning. It's the rules of planning that the developer wants to do something, by the very nature, and they present their case. It's up to others to say your evidence isn't correct etc. and they did that, but the committee didn't agree with them and the actual decision was valid and legal."
