Over 6,000 locals have signed a petition against the proposed development and a further 800 have submitted letters of objection.

The £50million incinerator project has been a contentious issue in the town with both sides of the debate citing conflicting scientific evidence and opinion on the extent of potential harm to human health arising from incineration waste.

Last month a report by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) claimed building the waste to energy plant, would have no negative impact on the health of Peterhead locals.

The report found that modern incinerators emit only a small amount of chemicals to the air, with any possible health effects from the incinerator likely to be very small.

But campaigners against the project accused the HPA of using out-of-date evidence branding the findings “preposterous”.

The proposed site of the incinerator is right next to oil and gas service firm Score Energy Ltd.

Company chairman Charles Ritchie said: “As the chairman I have a health and safety obligation to do everything I possibly can to improve our people’s health and safety. This does neither. It will get them in an early grave with serious medical complications.

“I think it’s terrible. It’s going to be 100ft from us and our crèche that has 30 youngsters in it and their health is going to be impaired and we just can’t do that.

The company’s Vital Sparks nursery is just 100m from the proposed site of the incinerator. Nursery Manager Judith Gray said: “We don’t want pollution, it’s a nice area – a very natural environment and the kids are outside playing every day. We don’t want the air full of nasty smells.”

Buchan CHP hit back at the organisers of today's protest, accusing them of “scare-mongering.”

Managing director Glenn Jones: "Parading cancer sufferers - whose conditions are in no way linked to energy-to-waste plants - is both demeaning and completely inappropriate.

"The protest's organisers to our plans are unnecessarily scare-mongering. Their highly emotive and totally mis-leading stance is not based on the facts or the evidence presented by independent health watchdogs and SEPA who have agreed that our plant would be safe and emissions would not pose a threat to public health.

"We understand the concerns of local people and have at all times put forward the facts about our proposals in our engagement with the community. Unfortunately those leading the protests are choosing to ignore the facts, making unsubstantiated claims time and time again and using out-dated irrelevant evidence from other schemes that bear no resemblance to our own.

The controversial plans went before local councillors on Tuesday to set a date for a pre-determination meeting prior to the application going before the full council.

The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) has withdrawn its original objections to the proposed development. It says that in light of the information submitted the plant appears capable of being consented and as a result it has withdrawn its objections to the proposal.