A north-east fish firm is refusing to give up on its controversial bid to expand its quayside factory, despite a tide of protest from nearby residents.
Fresh Catch’s plan to extend its cold store at Peterhead’s Kirk Street has already been rejected twice by Aberdeenshire councillors, after complaints from neighbours that the development could overshadow their homes.
Now the seafood company has launched a third attempt to win full planning permission.
Fresh Catch bosses have tabled revised plans to extend the 52ft store and its loading bay from 45,700sq ft to just over 82,755sq ft.
Although the amount of floor space proposed is actually larger than previous bids, the building has been redesigned so it is further away from neighbours.
According to the plans, it will be 81ft away from the nearest house – compared to 76ft proposed in the company’s previous application.
The application is now being considered by Aberdeenshire Council planning officers and is likely to be brought before members of the Buchan area committee before the end of the year.
The ground is owned by Peterhead Port Authority, whose chief executive John Wallace last year described Fresh Catch’s bid as a “Trump-sized” opportunity for the Buchan port.
He said a multi-million pound harbour investment plan could be put at risk if it doesn't get the go-ahead.
Original plans to expand the store were unanimously rejected by members of the Buchan area committee in 2006.
One councillor, George Barnes, said it would be a “criminal offence” to allow the plans to go ahead.
Several months later, Fresh Catch lodged revised plans for a scaled down development.
But this was thrown out by councillors last month.
The area committee voted 6-2 to reject the application.
Peterhead councillor Stuart Pratt said while he had sympathy for the company, he felt they had not gone as far as he wanted them.
But he extended an invitation to the company to lodge a new bid, after technical issues had been addressed.
Fresh Catch says it will paint an attractive mural on the side of the building to brighten up the area.
But last time, residents objected that the development would rob them of their sea view and de-value their homes.