People from Ancroft, Shoresdean and Duddo agreed to form the Moorsyde Action Group (MAG), which will co-ordinate local efforts to oppose the developers and argue a local case against the planning application.
MAG's acting chair, Mike Maud, said that opposition to the project centred on its 'inappropriate size and siting'. "It would be on a rural site, close to housing and would blight the landscape, compromising views of the Cheviots, and dominating the Tweed Valley, the Kyloe Hills and the Heritage Coast as far as Holy Island and Bamburgh," he said.
One of the speakers, local farmer Colin Taylor, added: "The sheer enormity of this project would destroy a landscape that my family and the community have enjoyed for generations."
Your Energy Ltd hope to erect 14 340-foot turbines on the site. Mr Maud said that they would be larger than all but a single turbine operating anywhere in the country - taller than those operating at Crystal Rig — and that the total size and output of the turbine array would be the third largest in the UK.
Mr Maud has also responded to comments made by Bill Richmond of Your Energy in last week's Advertiser, in which Mr Richmond defended the choice of the site and the company's handling of the project.
Mr Maud said: "Whilst Mr Richmond states that he wants to build and operate wind farms, it remains legitimate to question this intention. A representative fom the wind energy industry has advised that the role of many smaller developers is the location of sites and the securing of permissions.
"In the longer term it will be far larger organisations who are going to own the wind farms, so there is inevitably going to be a process of setting up and selling on. We are concerned about the lack of openness and the possible consequences in relation to any assurances offered by this company."
Mr Maud attacked the way the environmental impact assessment on the site had been carried out: "In the case of some wind farm applications, where the consultation process is conducted in a more open and meaningful way, interested parties are offered the opportunity to have an input into the scoping of this assessment.
"In the absence of this opportunity we will be higlighting the recognised good practice in carrying out such assessments to the local planning authority and hope that where standards have not been met remedial action will be sought."
Mr Richmond last week justified the late consultation on the project by saying people wanted to know the results of environmental impact assessments and other studies, not that they were to be carried out.
Mr Maud replied: "From the overwhelming feedback we have received to date from local people this is not a vew that is shared. Most people feel outraged by the way in which consultation has been carried out and by the scant information made available at the exhibition."
Mr Maud concludes: "The fact that the proposal would result in a totally unacceptable visual impact is a major issue but not the only one. By focussing on this Mr Richmond should not be allowed to deflect attention away from other issues, in particular the potential for noise pollution, impact on wildlife and a huge cumulative impact on the value of properties in the surrounding area.
"While Your Energy and many others in the industry continue to deny these issues there is a growing body of evidence to suggest they are now major considerations."