Landscapes, vegetation and renewable project site design

The amount of vegetation clearing required for a project is heavily dependent on the site chosen. Sensible initial site selection, site design and route planning to get materials to site can potentially avoid the need for clearing, significantly reducing the environmental and also social impact of a project. If clearing is deemed “unavoidable”, then legislation requires this impact to be “offset”, with the aim to achieve an environmental net gain by protecting or enhancing similar values at another site. However, the value of offsets are often criticised and must be applied carefully to achieve this aim. Placing offsets as close to the impact site as possible can help. Some projects in Qld have been located (or proposed) in areas of intact remnant forest with significant clearing impacts and ineffective offsets. In contrast, several, but not all, projects in our region are proposed for land that is already largely cleared and also compatible with current land uses.

In a largely cleared landscape, small areas of vegetation including isolated paddock trees, can be important to wildlife, stock and ecosystem health, and should be avoided with thoughtful site design.

Connective corridors in a landscape need to be protected, and sometimes only exist in road corridors.

There are multiple ways the potential environmental and social impacts of wind and solar developments can be reduced. Like any development, correct initial site selection is crucial in avoiding vegetation clearing and sensitive site design can improve visual amenity.

The area of cleared land (the ‘footprint’, or ‘disturbance area’) required for wind farms can be as low as 2 ha per wind turbine, for example, on flat land where no cuttings are required around hills. This does not include temporary construction footprint areas such as batching plants, crane pads and laydown areas, however these will be rehabilitated after construction and landholders can specify requirements for this.

Reports regarding significant vegetation clearing of wind farms are either projects being planned for the wrong locality, or sometimes wrong information is cited such as the total area of land within a project rather than the footprint. The final operational footprint is often around 5% of a total wind farm project area.

One key point is that roads might only create a small footprint, however, their environmental impacts are disproportionately large. It is best to use existing roads rather than create new ones.

Image Source: Google Earth / Maxar Technologies / Airbus (2020, 2026). Satellite imagery showing land clearing at the MacIntyre Wind Farm site, QLD.

Road layout and infrastructure placement can change many times during a project’s design stage, including micro-siting right up to construction time.

Wind turbine placements

Individual turbine placement takes into consideration wind resources on site to maximise energy generation and the spacing required between turbines. Initial wind resources can be estimated through desktop studies while more accurate wind measurements are obtained through onsite wind-monitoring towers. Landholders can request access to this data and be involved in site design including turbine placement. Some landholders have requested that turbines are sited where they are not visible from their, or their neighbours’, dwelling, whilst others admire the sight of turbines.

Solar array layout

Solar farms do not need to be large single blocks of ongoing solar panels. Smaller areas of panels can be integrated into the landscape, incorporating wildlife habitat or stock movement corridors. Ongoing research is quantifying which site designs most effectively sustain or enhance biodiversity (Nordberg, pers. comm.) to develop evidence-based guidance on siting, vegetation management, and infrastructure configuration.

Initially, solar farms were conceived as continuous blocks—side by side on the ground—without leaving space for nature or other land uses. Currently, there is a growing emphasis on promoting coexistence between this infrastructure and local lifestyles and compatible activities. There are images that can compare both situations. In the image1, a conventionally constructed block of solar panels is shown, while image 2 illustrates the coexistence of solar energy production with local agricultural activity.

Here is a breakdown of how these two approaches are different, along with some key concepts that explain why the coexistence model is gaining so much traction.

Conventional Solar Farms (The “Block” Approach)

In traditional setups (like the first image below), the primary goal is maximizing power density.

• Design: Panels are packed tightly together, mounted low to the ground.
• Land Impact: The ground underneath is often cleared, graded, and covered with gravel or sprayed with herbicides to prevent weeds from shading the panels.
• Drawbacks: This creates a biological desert, contributes to the local “heat island” effect, and strips the land of its original agricultural or ecological value, often sparking pushback from local farming communities.

Coexistence & Agrivoltaics (The “Shared” Approach)

The second image (below) highlights a symbiotic relationship. By making a few structural adjustments, developers can keep the land productive. To expand on what makes this model work so well, we can look at the specific ways infrastructure adapts to accommodate life underneath:

• Elevated Mounting: Panels are raised higher off the ground (often $2.5$ to $4$ meters) to allow tractors, farm equipment, or livestock to pass safely underneath.
• Wider Spacing: Rows are spaced further apart to let optimal sunlight reach the crops and soil, balancing the energy needs of the plants with the energy capture of the panels.
• Vertical & Tracking Systems: Some modern agrivoltaic farms use vertical bifacial (two-sided) solar panels that run North-South, leaving the space between rows entirely open for traditional farming while capturing sunlight in the morning and afternoon.

Queensland needs renewable energy, and wind farms will play an important role in that transition. But supporting wind energy does not mean assuming every project is acceptable simply because it meets a minimum setback distance.

Recent concerns about wind farm noise in Queensland raise a broader planning question: do Queensland’s planning provisions provide adequate protection for neighbours that will potentially be exposed to noise impacts from operating wind farms?

Recent concerns about proposed and operating wind farms in Queensland show why this issue matters in practice. Concerns have been raised about whether operating turbines at some project sites will cause unreasonable disturbance to neighbours and other sensitive land uses. Concerns have been raised about post-construction noise, while a compliance report by an independent acoustic consultant found wind farms have met relevant criteria at monitored locations while operating under certain mitigation conditions. These examples point to the same broader issue: communities need to understand how acoustic criteria are assessed, monitored and enforced after approval.

Key point: This section does not argue that a minimum setback distance of 1.5 km is always appropriate or inappropriate. It argues that setback distance alone is not the protection. The relevant question is whether wind farm noise can meet the applicable acoustic criteria at nearby sensitive receptors, including night-time noise limits designed to protect sleep.

What Queensland’s wind farm framework actually requires

Queensland’s planning framework does not assume that wind turbines are automatically appropriate if they are located 1.5 km from a dwelling. The current framework is contained in State code 23: Wind farm development of the State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP), supported by the Queensland Government’s July 2025 planning guideline.

For non-host dwellings, the framework requires two separate things:

1. Compliance with acoustic criteria – this is the primary legal test.
2. Unless the affected landowner agrees to a shorter distance through a deed of release, a minimum of 1.5 km separation distance between turbines and sensitive land uses on non-host lots is required.

For non-host dwellings, the current Queensland framework requires that predicted wind farm noise – assessed as the outdoor A-weighted equivalent continuous acoustic level (LAeq) – must not exceed:

1. At night (8 pm–6 am): 35 dB(A), or the existing background noise level measured as LA90 plus 5 dB(A), whichever is greater.
2. During the day (6 am–8 pm): 37 dB(A), or the existing background noise level measured as LA90 plus 5 dB(A), whichever is greater.

In practice, this means a project can satisfy the 1.5 km setback requirement and still fail the acoustic requirement. A project located at exactly 1.5 km is not acceptable unless the proponent can demonstrate through acoustic modelling that the predicted noise level remains within those limits at the dwelling.

The 1.5 km figure is not intended to guarantee compliance. It is a figure included in the Code as a distance which must be clearly recognised in deeds of release, along with the accepted noise criteria, if the distance is under that amount.

Queensland’s September 2024 revisions to State code 23 strengthened the position of non-host landholders as utilising noise criteria means that the distance from turbines can not be used as a reason for not meeting noise requirements. Earlier versions of the framework included an “acceptable outcome” pathway under which all turbines more than 1,500 metres from sensitive land uses enabled a wind farm application to proceed under the ode assessment process. In addition, since 2025, windfarms are now required to undergo the full impact assessment process under the Planning Act 2016 which requires full submission and legal objection opportunities. Code assessment involved less opportunities for public scrutiny: there is no mandatory public notification, no right for community members to make submissions, and no third-party appeal rights. The Planning (Wind Farms) Amendment Regulation 2025, which came into effect in February 2025, then made all wind farm applications subject to mandatory impact assessment under the Planning Act 2016.

Proponents must now demonstrate compliance with all performance outcomes and the purpose statement through public assessment, and affected community members have the right to make submissions and bring merits appeals.

The 1,500-metre reference point remains relevant in relation to deed-of-release arrangements, but the practical legal question has always been, and remains, whether the project can satisfy the acoustic criteria at nearby dwellings.

The July 2025 Planning Guideline states that even where a landowner has agreed to a lesser setback through a deed of release, an outdoor nighttime acoustic level exceeding 45 dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above background is stated in the Guideline as unlikely to be acceptable due to the potential for sleep disturbance. The Guideline links that absolute guideline protection level to the World Health Organisation’s 1999 Guidelines for Community Noise.

What RTI documents show

Internal Queensland Government documents from 2015, released under Right to Information, do not show that the Queensland Government formally concluded that a 1,500-metre setback was acceptable.

What they do show is that there was disagreement within the government during the development of the draft wind farm code.

One RTI document records comments from a specialist in environmental noise, within the Queensland Government at the time, arguing that a 1,500-metre buffer “will not be sufficient for the current size of wind turbine.” The specialist also expressed concern that the proposed acoustic criteria might not adequately protect health and well-being.

The specialist further raised concerns about whether standard A-weighted measurements gave sufficient attention to low-frequency noise, infrasound, annoyance and sleep disturbance. He specifically argued that by design, the A-weighting process substantially attenuates low-frequency and infrasound content, making those components effectively impossible to assess using the standard dB(A) metric. Those methodological concerns remain debated in the scientific literature. The National Health and Medical Research Council’s published position is that there is no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans, and its information paper states that there is no direct evidence considering possible health effects of infrasound or low-frequency noise from wind farms specifically.

The technical specialist’s comments show that at least one government noise specialist believed larger turbines could require greater separation distances or stricter noise controls.

However, it is important not to overstate the significance of this. The specialist’s comments were internal technical advice during the development of the code. They were not adopted as the Queensland Government’s final position.

Approximately two weeks after that review was completed and circulated, a senior departmental executive stated in RTI-released internal correspondence that the department had “no concerns” with the draft code because it was based on independent technical advice.

The discussion about greater setback distances for larger turbines remains relevant today. Wind turbines proposed for recent projects are around 247 metres in total tip height – substantially larger than those being considered when the draft code was under development in 2015, including earlier projects at around 180 m tip height.

Why turbine scale makes performance-based assessment essential

The broader evidence shows that a simple setback distance requirement will not be either universally adequate or universally inadequate – factors such as turbine scale, terrain, weather conditions, background noise and operational controls all affect whether a project can meet acoustic criteria at nearby sensitive receptors.

Modern turbines are much larger than those commonly proposed when the original 1.5 km separation distance was introduced. In some recent Queensland projects, turbines of approximately 247 metres in tip height have been proposed, according to publicly available project documentation.

NSW’s current Wind Energy Guideline confirms that turbine scaling is sector-wide, stating that utility-scale wind turbines in NSW are now typically around 200 m to 250 m high, with some proposals up to 300 m.

Larger turbines generally have greater sound power output, and their greater hub height reduces the opportunity for terrain and vegetation to shield noise propagation – a point the NSW guideline also makes explicitly.

Noise outcomes also depend on topography, wind speed and direction, atmospheric conditions, the number and arrangement of turbines, the background noise environment, and whether several turbines interact acoustically at the same location.

What the health and noise evidence says in comparison with Queensland

The World Health Organisation’s Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region conditionally recommend reducing wind turbine noise exposure below 45 dB Lden. That is an exposure metric – a day-evening-night weighted average – not a setback rule, and it cannot be directly converted into a universal distance. It reflects the broader conclusion that higher levels of wind farm noise are associated with increased annoyance and reduced amenity.

The Australian NHMRC reached a more cautious conclusion. Its 2015 statement found no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse physical or mental health effects in humans. Its accompanying information paper found consistent though poor-quality evidence of annoyance, less consistent poor-quality evidence of an association with sleep disturbance, and noted, based on parallel evidence, that wind farm noise is unlikely to disturb sleep at distances greater than 1,500 metres. NHMRC also emphasised that the underlying evidence was limited and generally of poor quality.

That is important. It means the available evidence does not justify claiming that 1.5 km is generally of concern . But it also does not justify assuming that every project at 1.5 km will necessarily comply.

Why a simple setback rule is not enough

The strongest regulatory and technical guidance does not rely on a single setback distance.

South Australia’s EPA guidance explains that wind turbine noise and background noise both vary with wind speed, so a single distance or base noise level is not sufficient to predict impact. New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010 – used in Victoria and other Australian jurisdictions – relies on a performance-based noise criterion of 40 dB(A) LA90 or background noise plus 5 dB(A), whichever is greater, rather than a universal setback distance.

None of these frameworks endorse a single safe distance. They all use performance-based standards that require demonstration of compliance at the affected dwelling, under real site conditions.

The broader evidence supports a more careful conclusion: there is no universally “acceptable ” setback distance, and larger turbines make rigorous, project-specific assessment more important, not less.

What should change

The evidence does not support treating 1.5 km as either a guaranteed appropriate distance or a guaranteed inappropriate distance.

What it does show is that, for larger modern turbines, a fixed setback alone is not enough. The key question is not whether a project is 1.5 km away, but whether it can comply with the applicable acoustic criteria at nearby dwellings under real operating conditions.

As the RTI documents discussed above show, there was internal disagreement within government about whether 1.5 km would remain adequate as turbines became larger. The broader scientific and regulatory literature supports a related conclusion: there is no universally “appropriate” setback distance, and larger turbines make rigorous, performance-based assessment more important, not less.

The changes made to Queensland’s planning system to require impact assessment of all projects create stronger protection for communities questioning how living alongside wind farms will affect them. It’s important that communities are given reassurance that the planning framework requires:

• Robust project-specific acoustic modelling.
• Transparent public access to the assumptions, inputs and results used.
• Independent review where concerns are raised.
• Independent post-construction monitoring at nearby non-host dwellings.
• Strong enforcement where exceedances are confirmed.

Three practical improvements would strengthen the current framework:

1. Guidance: Issue clear public guidance explaining that the September 2024 removal of the acceptable outcome pathway means setback distance alone can no longer be used as a compliance shortcut, and that the February 2025 regulatory changes require all wind farm applications to demonstrate acoustic compliance through full impact assessment regardless of distance from non-host dwellings.
2. Monitoring: Ensure post-construction noise monitoring is independent, clearly reported and easy for communities to access and understand. Queensland’s planning guidance already anticipates operational noise monitoring and associated reporting through approval conditions. The practical issue is whether communities can easily find the relevant monitoring plan, reports and compliance outcome, and understand whether the applicable acoustic criteria are being met. Monitoring at private dwellings would require landholder authorisation.
3. Enforcement: Require mitigation measures where post-construction monitoring or regulatory investigation confirms that the applicable acoustic criterion has been exceeded.

Queensland needs renewable energy, including wind energy. But public confidence depends on transparent evidence, rigorous acoustic assessment, independent monitoring and effective enforcement – not on assuming that any single setback distance is either automatically safe or automatically unsafe.

Sources and references

• State code 23: Wind farm development, SDAP version 3.2 (Queensland, February 2025)
• Planning guideline: State code 23: Wind farm development (Queensland Government, July 2025)
• RTI-15-127, File A – Internal Queensland Government correspondence, August–September 2015, released under the Right to Information Act 2009 (EHP)
• NHMRC Statement: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health (February 2015)
• NHMRC Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health (February 2015)
• World Health Organization: Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (2018)
• NSW Wind Energy Guideline (NSW Department of Planning, 2023)
• South Australian EPA: Wind farms – environmental noise (SA EPA)
• New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010: Acoustics – Wind farm noise
• World Health Organization: Guidelines for Community Noise (1999)

• Project correctly sited in areas of minimal remnant vegetation.
• Thoughtful site design minimises roads (especially new roads near/through habitat) and mitigates need for clearing and earthworks.
• Early, local input for environmental matters obtained.
• Flexibility during continuous local consultation allows design modifications to avoid or minimise impacts on ecological values.
• On-site impacts minimised and values restored on-site before resorting to environmental “off-setting” off-site.
• Connectivity of site and broader landscape assisted through incorporating microhabitat features and restoring vegetated corridors.
• Project strives for net gain of vegetation and habitat quality in the landscape rather than accepting that developments result in net loss.
• Cumulative and indirect impacts (such as road widening) of multiple projects in an area are accounted for and minimised.
• Site-specific studies are used to inform project layout/design as generic guidelines may not be applicable in all contexts.