The Carron Valley is being used as a “dumping ground” for windfarms and no more developments should be allowed in the area.
That’s the view of a rural community council which feels it has been left marginalised due to its location.
The scenic area of hills and woodland to the north-west of Denny and Dunipace is already home to two operational windfarms, with another due to be built.
Plans have already been submitted to build three more, including at Rullie Hill, close to Loch Coulter.
The consultation period on the proposed Rullie Hill development closes on April 24.
Carron Valley is split between Falkirk and Stirling council areas.
The final decision on Rullie Hill will be made by Falkirk planners, but those who live closest to the site live predominantly on the Stirling side of the boundary.
David Petch, secretary of Carron Valley & District Community Council, said: “There might as well be Hadrian’s Wall dividing us.
“We’ve been left completely out of the loop. We were not even formally notified that the revised plans for Rullie Hill had been submitted.
“Originally there were to be three turbines on the Stirling side, and 10 on the other. But now they will all be in the Falkirk council area.
“My home is 1150 metres from where the nearest turbine could be erected but I’ve not been consulted at all.”
Mr Petch added that Carron Valley was being viewed as a soft-touch by windfarm developers, who were racing against each other to have their plans approved.
He continued: “No other community in Scotland would have as many windfarms in close proximity as here, if all these proposals are given the green light. Enough is enough.”
Meanwhile, Denny & Dunipace Community Council decided to formally oppose the Rullie Hill development at a meeting on April 2.
It had previously adopted a neutral stance on the issue.
Chairman Colin Belbin said: “We have to listen to any objectors or supporters of local developments.
“There has been significant opposition to this development from members of the public who have attended our meetings.
“We feel it would be visually damaging and would involve the destruction of woodland.”