AROUND 200 Peebles residents turned out to demonstrate their outrage over plans for a housing development on the north side of the town.
It was standing room only at the St Joseph's Neighbourhood Hall as the public grasped the opportunity to show its disapproval.
The developers and Scottish Borders Council planners were attacked over the proposals which could see 130 houses being built on parts of Rosetta Caravan Park.
The plan was approved in principle - with 20 conditions - by members of the planning and buildings committee in April.
One of the main complaints from residents is the requirement for a road link and the provision of a bridge at Dalatho.
They are also angry that applicants Aberdeen Asset Management are trying to wriggle out of a responsibility to provide 25 per cent affordable housing.
Peebles Community Council convened the public meeting in response to the strength of local resistance to the proposals.
Two officers of SBC were in attendance but an agent representing the developers had declined to make an appearance.
The officers faced a barrage of questions from the public - and admitted that it had been a difficult decision for the council to make.
One of the residents brought a loud round of applause when he attacked SBC's stance on the application.
"The council have hopelessly compromised themselves and tied themselves in knots," said Stuart Akers.
"This application should not have been considered for one split second. Rosetta is part of our national and historical heritage - it goes back 1,300 years and after the Reformation it became part of the town.
"The houses are not wanted or necessary and the bridge is neither desired or necessary.
"If the council wishes to untie the manifold knots it finds itself in all it needs to do is throw it out
"Aberdeen Asset Management haven't come because they didn't dare!
Tweeddale West councillor Catriona Bhatia, said: "I've been listening with interest and I'm very disappointed that the developers have chosen not to be here. 
"There's a long way to go - the two big hurdles are the economic plan and in relation to the bridge. If that comes forward I'm sure you'll be filling the hall again.
"The 25 per cent affordable housing contribution policy was hard fought - and it's not nearly enough. That should continue and this application should not be considered without that.
"It's stressful to have this hanging over you and we need to push the developer to come back at a certain date.
Later Councillor Bhatia told the Peeblesshire News: "I am not surprised at all at the number of people here and the strength of the opposition. It's spread between two groups now - with those worried about Rosetta and those against the bridge.
"It's a long time since I have attended a public meeting such as this where there's been so many people and feelings have been so high - the last I can remember was in West Linton several years ago.
"Everyone is now fully aware of the weight of opposition to the plans and it's going to be a huge challenge now for the developer to meet all the conditions."
Peebles Community Council chairman Robin Tatler said: "We are delighted to see so many people here tonight. This is a very heated subject and we as a community council are opposed to this development.
"This was put forward as an infill site but it is not and goes against the local development plan. Our view is that the applicants must be made to stick to the 20 conditions rigidly."
Ian Aikman, a planning officer for SBC, told the meeting: "This wasn't an easy decision for the members of the planning and building committee but they thought there was greater benefit in allowing it to proceed.
"The views that have been expressed here will be considered as part of the process. They should certainly echo the strength of feeling. "
Cliff Scupham, one of the lead campaigners against the plan, called on the council to refuse the developer's plea for a waiver of education contributions and affordable housing costs.
And another resident said: "Why waive contribution costs for the big boys and hammer some of the smaller ones?"
But Mr Aikman said: "The policy is there for small developers to make applications to have costs waived.
"Our starting point is that the contribution costs must be paid. We have a developer contributions officer that goes through it all and if someone from the developers provides us with the information they must go through it with us on an open book basis."
Roads officer Derek Inglis insisted a new bridge would be necessary to cater for the extra housing.
"Dalatho is an obvious link between Rosetta Road and Edinburgh Road and I can't support 130 houses without increased connectivity," he said. "A development without a link over Dalatho would put extra pressure on Rosetta Road.
He ruled out an idea put forward by several residents to move the bridge further north.
"It's difficult to get the right position for a bridge but if we put it too far north people would go down Rosetta Road and use March Street," he said.
Residents claimed that a traffic survey carried out on one day in February 2013 was "unscientific" and there was concern for the safety of children at Kingsland Primary School.
But Mr Inglis said he was happy to be guided by the survey and added: "Virtually all primary schools in the Borders have roads that pass by them. Just because the road passes by doesn't necessarily make it unsafe."
In response to queries about the land at the site of the possible bridge at Dalatho, Mr Aikman said it was unclear whether the owners were Scottish Borders Housing Association, SBC, the Common Good or a combination of the three.
But he added that the applicants for the bridge did not need to know as planning permission is "ownership blind".
Mr Scupham wanted to know how the numbers of caravans at the holiday park could be cut back by 40 per cent when the new development was supposed to be promoting tourism.
But Mr Aikman said: There is a condition that requires for elements of tourism in the development."
He stressed that the development could not proceed until the applicants had provided the council with all the necessary information regarding meeting the 20 conditions.
"There's no legal timeframe when they must do this but they have indicated that they are working towards getting the information
to us."