Applicant FM Ury submitted plans for a 3,750 square metre supermarket alongside a 50-bedroom hotel and restaurant and associated infrastructure at land at Ury Estate, Stonehaven.
The scheme was recommended for refusal. A planning report said that the proposals were "significantly contrary to the development plan".
It concluded that the proposed development failed to comply with the sequential test.
It added: "Furthermore, due to its location, the proposal will result in significant adverse retail impacts on both shops in Stonehaven town centre, and the existing Co-op supermarket on David Street, and the scale of adverse retail impact will undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre."
However, Aberdeenshire Council’s Kincardine and Mearns Area Committee this week backed the proposals.
Jonathon Milne, director of FM Group, said: "Councillors have weighed up all the options and have recognised the overall benefits of our proposals as part of the planned expansion of Stonehaven.
"This is the last piece in the jigsaw for the transformation of Ury Estate in a planned and sustained way which provides jobs, opportunities and homes within a highly desirable location that is easy to access for everyone in Stonehaven and beyond."
The committee also considered three other applications with retail elements at the same meeting, but all were rejected, in line with officer recommendations.
This included plans for a supermarket smaller than 4,000 square metres, a petrol station and associated access infrastructure and landscaping at land at New Mains of Ury, Stonehaven.
Proposals were also submitted for a mixed-use development, including up to 250 homes, community facilities, primary school and a retail unit smaller than 4,000 square metres and petrol station at Mains Of Cowie, Stonehaven.
An application a mixed-use scheme comprising 500 residential units, employment and retail uses at Land at Mill Of Forest, Stonehaven was also turned down.
Planning attempted to contact the chair and vice chair of the planning committee to find out why councilors voted in favour of the proposal, but both could not be contacted at the time of publication.