Dear Bellman,
The reasons for recent refusal of a Tesco Supermarket for Stonehaven are flawed.
It constitutes the material fallacy of the consequent (non sequitur) and a (retail) mathematical fallacy to state that Stonehaven can accommodate one new supermarket but not two.
First, since the development of major retail outlets at Portlethen there has been, for many years, serious and damaging zonal retail leakage from Stonehaven; second, circa 60% to 90% of retail achieved by new supermarket(s) would be claw-back of leakage from Portlethen and elsewhere; circa 90% claw-back would be more likely achievable by two new supermarkets due to increased level of qualitative and quantitative choice denied to Stonehaven for increasingly erroneous reasons to a culpable degree since a previous application in 2004 for a supermarket was refused, contrary to the public interest. The Tesco would have been a cure, not the cause of leakage.
When the Council’s “retail expert” cited the detrimental impact to Huntly by out-of-town retail developments it constituted the material fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) in arguing to the wrong point, or proving one thing in such a manner that it is supposed to be something else that is proved.
Similarly, a comparison with the failing of Aberdeen City centre is utterly ridiculous when it is plain the latest detrimental impact in the City is caused by imposition of ‘traffic zones’.
The power to grant planning permission is discretionary. With the exception of where there has been agreed lawful delegation, the power lies with elected councillors as decision makers and their discretion cannot be fettered and they cannot fetter themselves in exercise of their discretion.
Policy is a material consideration but, as a matter of (planning) law, Policy cannot dictate the decision otherwise Policy has fettered the discretion. The same applies to recommendations made by Council officers.
Whether the consented supermarket at Ury will ever be developed is beside the point. The recent refusal of the proposed Tesco at Stonehaven is contrary to the general public interest under which all “public affairs” (including planning applications) should be determined.
Yours etc,
John A. A. Agnew
Town &Country Planning Agent
Kinnear House
33 Evan Street
Stonehaven