In each case, the developer is appealing against Berwick Borough Council's refusal of planning permission prior to the authority's demise.

Mrs MacKenzie outlined what she regards as the main issues at the inquiry - visual impact of the turbines on the surrounding landscape; the cumulative impact, including the West Ancroft application; and the effect of the proposals on cultural heritage and surroundings, in particular the impact of Toft Hill on Duddo stones.

She said: "It has become rapidly very clear that the 16 days set aside for the inquiry will not be enough."

The inspector initially suggested that to save time, closing submissions could be made just in writting, but Michael Druce, advocate for Moorsyde Action Group, urged her to reconsider given the public interest in the closing submissions.

The inspector then accepted proposals from Catamount Energy's advocate Marcus Trinick and the council's representative Paul Tucker, to restrict the closing submission statements to 25 minute summaries.

Mr Trinick complained to the inspector that core documents were only received by some of the appellants at 9.30pm the day before, but Mr Tucker explained that this was down to local government reorganisation, and logistical problems.

The inquiry heard the opening statements from all the parties involved, commencing with Mr Trinick for Catamount Energy.

He said: "Barmoor is an example of a wind farm well selected in terms of avoiding constraints. In particular there are no civilian or military radar issues; there are no objections relating to ornithology; there are no objections relating to other nature conservation issues; and notably there are no objections relating to operating noise.

"In addition, it is the position of Catamount that there is no substance in the objection by SOUL (Save Our Unspoilt Landscape) in relation to cultural heritage...nor do the SOUL witnesses add anything of great weight to the picture. We refer especially in opening to the evidence on tourism. It will become clear to you that evidence against wind farms on the basis of contended tourism impacts is always supremely unconvincing."

Elizabeth Dunn, advocate for Moorsyde Wind Farm Ltd, said: "The Moorsyde scheme is a good scheme. There is a need for developments such as Moorsyde that are acceptable in planning terms, and there were no objections from any statutory consultees."

She added: "There will be no significant impact on a naturally different landscape, and where there are impacts they will not be overbearing."

Mrs Dunn went on to say: "There is a significant level of public support for the Moorsyde scheme, including 439 letters of support." - a statement that was met with laughter from many of the 75 or so people in attendance at the inquiry.

David Hardy, advocate for npower said: "There is a compelling need for planning permission to be granted to meet government targets.

"The impacts would be geographically limited, and there would be no significant effect on Northumberland National Park or the AONB."

Mr Hardy said that the landscape could support either one, two or three, but not four, wind farms before suggesting to the inspector that the Toft Hill proposal would be the best proposal if only one application was to be approved.

He added: "The council and third parties are overstating the impact on Duddo stones."

Counsel for Northumberland County Council, Mr Tucker, said in his opening submission: "There is no doubt my clients will be castigated for refusing these schemes for 'parochial reasons'."

He added that the schemes were not proposed on land which was best for wind generation or where the landscape impacts were minimal, but on land which a landowner had accepted money from developers.

Mr Tucker was extremely critical of the environmental statements produced by Moorsyde Wind Farm Ltd, describing it as a 'paper chase' and in a state of 'disarray'.

On Toft Hill he said: "The effects on Duddo stones takes this into a different league of adverse effects."

David Forsdick, advocate for SOUL, said: "SOUL's basic case is that this is not an appropriately located proposal. The developers have simply chosen the wrong location."

He added: "There is a real risk of these developments undermining the tourism economy."

Derek Woolerton, a chartered landscape architect and consultant was then called by the county council as an expert witness on landscape issues.

He told the meeting that he believed that in all cases, the impact of the turbines had been underestimated by the developers, adding that all three proposals would have significant adverse.

Mr Woolerton was particularly critical of the photomontages initially produced for Moorsyde Wind Farm Ltd, pointing out inaccuracies between the original images and the most recent ones, received just two weeks ago. He said that just eight out of the original 18 were correct, and called the work 'sub-standard'.

The inquiry continues.