Thrumster Wastewater Scheme

Hopkins Consultants comprises engineers, surveyors and town planners and are the consultants for the development of land in Sovereign Hills in Thrumster. We support the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme, which is essential for Council to reach their housing targets.

Please see attached document.

Subject: Personal Objection to the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant Project

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. I live in Port Macquarie and was totally unaware of this proposal and it's impacts until it was brought to my attention by a friend. I have serious concerns about the planning, transparency, environmental impacts, financial impacts, and procedural integrity associated with the project.

Omission of Critical Information
It has come to my attention that several important documents—containing findings that challenge the suitability of the Thrumster site—were omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR). These include the Strategic Wastewater Management Plan, the Discharge Options Assessment, and the Connection Investigation Response from Essential Energy (April 2025), among others.
The excluded information suggests that the selected site is less viable than alternatives like Lake Road or Koala Street, particularly in terms of financial, environmental, cultural, and public health outcomes. The failure to include these assessments undermines the credibility of the entire planning process and appears to reflect a biased agenda rather than evidence-based decision-making.

Limited and Misleading Public Communication
Until this was brought to my attention I was totally unaware of this project, let alone its financial, ecological, indigenous, or questionable transparency issues. This failure to communicate openly deprives the public of their right to fully understand and respond to the impacts of the proposal. The Council’s public website remains incomplete and misleading. As of 10 May 2025, it still does not provide updated information on major developments such as cost escalations or infrastructure changes.

Cultural Heritage Concerns
I am also deeply disturbed by the treatment of the Birpai Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) in relation to archaeological investigations. The reported exclusion of the Birpai RAP from test excavations—despite their prior involvement and formal interest—raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The fact that their objections and complaints were never documented in the EIS further demonstrates a lack of integrity and cultural respect.

Withholding of Power Supply Information
I understand that a revised power supply assessment from Essential Energy (dated 4 April 2025) revealed major changes to the electricity route for the WWTP, requiring overhead lines and a new alignment. Yet this was not disclosed in the AR or RTS. The Council’s apparent plan to introduce this as a modification at a later stage is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the principles of open, lawful environmental planning.

Financial and Ethical Issues
I am troubled by the lack of transparency surrounding the project’s funding. No update of costings has been provided, and no clear explanation has been given about where the remaining funds will come from, raising concerns about financial mismanagement and potential burden on ratepayers.
The fact that only two companies were invited to tender—followed by their merger—and the existence of family connections between Council employees and project contractors also raises legitimate questions about the fairness and integrity of the procurement process.

Environmental and Health Risks
I am especially concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with fill materials that reportedly contain asbestos. This poses a serious risk to residents, wildlife, and ecosystems. This risk appears to have been overlooked or ignored in the planning documents.

My Request
Based on these concerns, I respectfully request that the Council:
Immediately suspend further progress on the Thrumster WWTP project until a full and transparent review is undertaken.
Reassess the project site, giving proper consideration to viable alternatives, including upgrades to existing infrastructure at Lake Road and Koala Street.
Disclose a clear financial plan for the entire cost of the project and its funding sources.
Address all outstanding cultural heritage matters with the appropriate involvement of Birpai Traditional Owners.
Conduct an independent environmental and health risk review, particularly relating to the use of potentially hazardous materials.

This project, in its current form, is flawed in both process and substance. It risks long-term environmental, cultural, financial, and social damage. I urge the Council to reconsider the direction of this development and take immediate action to ensure that future decisions reflect integrity, evidence, and respect for all stakeholders.

Subject: Personal Objection to the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant Project

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. All residents and ratepayers of Port Macquarie will be directly affected by this development and I have serious concerns about the planning, transparency, environmental impacts, financial impacts, and procedural integrity associated with the project.

Omission of Critical Information
It has come to my attention that several important documents—containing findings that challenge the suitability of the Thrumster site—were omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR). These include the Strategic Wastewater Management Plan, the Discharge Options Assessment, and the Connection Investigation Response from Essential Energy (April 2025), among others.
The excluded information suggests that the selected site is less viable than alternatives like Lake Road or Koala Street, particularly in terms of financial, environmental, cultural, and public health outcomes. The failure to include these assessments undermines the credibility of the entire planning process and appears to reflect a biased agenda rather than evidence-based decision-making.
Limited and Misleading Public Communication
The Council’s public website remains incomplete and misleading. As of 10 May 2025, it still does not provide updated information on major developments such as cost escalations or infrastructure changes. Personally as a resident, until this was brought to my attention I was totally unaware of this project, let alone its financial, ecological, indigenous, or questionable transparency issues. This failure to communicate openly deprives the public of their right to fully understand and respond to the impacts of the proposal.

Cultural Heritage Concerns
I am also deeply disturbed by the treatment of the Birpai Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) in relation to archaeological investigations. The reported exclusion of the Birpai RAP from test excavations—despite their prior involvement and formal interest—raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The fact that their objections and complaints were never documented in the EIS further demonstrates a lack of integrity and cultural respect.

Withholding of Power Supply Information
I understand that a revised power supply assessment from Essential Energy (dated 4 April 2025) revealed major changes to the electricity route for the WWTP, requiring overhead lines and a new alignment. Yet this was not disclosed in the AR or RTS. The Council’s apparent plan to introduce this as a modification at a later stage is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the principles of open, lawful environmental planning.

Financial and Ethical Issues
I am troubled by the lack of transparency surrounding the project’s funding. From what I understand, only about 30% of the required funding has been identified. No clear explanation has been given about where the remaining funds will come from, raising concerns about financial mismanagement and potential burden on ratepayers.
The fact that only two companies were invited to tender—followed by their merger—and the existence of family connections between Council employees and project contractors also raises legitimate questions about the fairness and integrity of the procurement process.

Environmental and Health Risks
I am especially concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with fill materials that reportedly contain asbestos. This poses a serious risk to residents, wildlife, and ecosystems. This risk appears to have been overlooked or ignored in the planning documents.

My Request
Based on these concerns, I respectfully request that the Council:
Immediately suspend further progress on the Thrumster WWTP project until a full and transparent review is undertaken.
Reassess the project site, giving proper consideration to viable alternatives, including upgrades to existing infrastructure at Lake Road and Koala Street.
Disclose a clear financial plan for the entire cost of the project and its funding sources.
Address all outstanding cultural heritage matters with the appropriate involvement of Birpai Traditional Owners.
Conduct an independent environmental and health risk review, particularly relating to the use of potentially hazardous materials.

This project, in its current form, is flawed in both process and substance. It risks long-term environmental, cultural, financial, and social damage. I urge the Council to reconsider the direction of this development and take immediate action to ensure that future decisions reflect integrity, evidence, and respect for all stakeholders.

The treatment plant is very close to a beautiful wetland and I believe that the bird and wildlife habitat will be adversely impacted .

Hi team,

The project is being rushed through, expected to cost far too much at 200million and is a flood plain and birdwatching area.

The Koala street facility could be upgraded for less.

Thanks for your time

I object on the grounds of mismanagement of rate payer funds. This project is around 150 million more expensive than upgrading Koala Street plant. This money should be put into reducing odour around the Koala Street plant instead.

Inadequate Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment – Thrumster Wastewater Scheme
The Birpai Local Aboriginal Land Council (Birpai LALC) writes to raise serious concerns about the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessment process associated with the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme in the Port Macquarie-Hastings region.
It has come to our attention that, within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) comprising over 2,000 pages, only 38 Aboriginal artefacts were identified. Birpai LALC is deeply concerned that the Aboriginal site inspections and cultural due diligence undertaken as part of this project have been inadequate and do not reflect the cultural significance of Birpai Country.
Birpai LALC is the legally recognised Aboriginal stakeholder for this region and one of the Traditional Custodians of this land. We are not satisfied that the current process meets legislative obligations under the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or reflects best practice for engagement with Aboriginal stakeholders.
We formally request:
* That the project be paused pending further cultural heritage investigation;
* That Birpai LALC cultural heritage officers be engaged to revisit the site;
* That a comprehensive Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment be conducted in partnership with Birpai LALC;
* That the community be given the opportunity to review updated findings before any further decisions are made.
The Thrumster area is known to contain highly significant cultural heritage, including artefact scatters, scarred trees, and potential intangible values that require proper consideration. Protection of these cultural landscapes is essential to our community and to the future integrity of development on Birpai land.
We request that our submission be acknowledged and that immediate steps be taken to engage in meaningful consultation with the Birpai LALC moving forward.
Yours sincerely,
Jaclyn Rajcany
Chief Executive Officer

Subject: Personal Objection to the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant Project

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. This will affect all residents and ratepayers of Port Macquarie and I have serious concerns about the planning, transparency, environmental impacts, financial impacts, and procedural integrity associated with the project.

Omission of Critical Information
It has come to my attention that several important documents—containing findings that challenge the suitability of the Thrumster site—were omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR). These include the Strategic Wastewater Management Plan, the Discharge Options Assessment, and the Connection Investigation Response from Essential Energy (April 2025), among others.
The excluded information suggests that the selected site is less viable than alternatives like Lake Road or Koala Street, particularly in terms of financial, environmental, cultural, and public health outcomes. The failure to include these assessments undermines the credibility of the entire planning process and appears to reflect a biased agenda rather than evidence-based decision-making.

Limited and Misleading Public Communication
Asa resident, I was totally unaware of this proposal. It was not till a friend told me about it and it's impacts that I even knew this was a proposal. The Council’s public website remains incomplete and misleading. As of 10 May 2025, it still does not provide updated information on major developments such as cost escalations or infrastructure changes. I am incredibly concerned about the proposals' financial, ecological, indigenous, or questionable transparency issues. This failure to communicate openly deprives the public of their right to fully understand and respond to the impacts of the proposal.

Cultural Heritage Concerns
I am also deeply disturbed by the treatment of the Birpai Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) in relation to archaeological investigations. The reported exclusion of the Birpai RAP from test excavations—despite their prior involvement and formal interest—raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The fact that their objections and complaints were never documented in the EIS further demonstrates a lack of integrity and cultural respect.

Withholding of Power Supply Information
I understand that a revised power supply assessment from Essential Energy (dated 4 April 2025) revealed major changes to the electricity route for the WWTP, requiring overhead lines and a new alignment. Yet this was not disclosed in the AR or RTS. The Council’s apparent plan to introduce this as a modification at a later stage is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the principles of open, lawful environmental planning.

Financial and Ethical Issues
I am troubled by the lack of transparency surrounding the project’s funding. There is no clear explanation of updated costs, or any information about where the remaining funds will come from, raising concerns about financial burden on ratepayers.
The fact that only two companies were invited to tender—followed by their merger—and the existence of family connections between Council employees and project contractors also raises legitimate questions about the fairness and integrity of the procurement process.

Environmental and Health Risks
I am especially concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with fill materials that reportedly contain asbestos. This poses a serious risk to residents, wildlife, and ecosystems. This risk appears to have been overlooked or ignored in the planning documents.

My Request
Based on these concerns, I respectfully request that the Council:
Immediately suspend further progress on the Thrumster WWTP project until a full and transparent review is undertaken.
Reassess the project site, giving proper consideration to viable alternatives, including upgrades to existing infrastructure at Lake Road and Koala Street.
Disclose a clear financial plan for the entire cost of the project and its funding sources.
Address all outstanding cultural heritage matters with the appropriate involvement of Birpai Traditional Owners.
Conduct an independent environmental and health risk review, particularly relating to the use of potentially hazardous materials.

This project, in its current form, is flawed in both process and substance. It risks long-term environmental, cultural, financial, and social damage. I urge the Council to reconsider the direction of this development and take immediate action to ensure that future decisions reflect integrity, evidence, and respect for all stakeholders.

Subject: Personal Objection to the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant Project

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. All residents and ratepayers of Port Macquarie will be directly affected by this development and I have serious concerns about the planning, transparency, environmental impacts, financial impacts, and procedural integrity associated with the project.

Omission of Critical Information
It has come to my attention that several important documents—containing findings that challenge the suitability of the Thrumster site—were omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR). These include the Strategic Wastewater Management Plan, the Discharge Options Assessment, and the Connection Investigation Response from Essential Energy (April 2025), among others.
The excluded information suggests that the selected site is less viable than alternatives like Lake Road or Koala Street, particularly in terms of financial, environmental, cultural, and public health outcomes. The failure to include these assessments undermines the credibility of the entire planning process and appears to reflect a biased agenda rather than evidence-based decision-making.

Limited and Misleading Public Communication
The Council’s public website remains incomplete and misleading. As of 10 May 2025, it still does not provide updated information on major developments such as cost escalations or infrastructure changes. Personally as a resident, until this was brought to my attention I was totally unaware of this project, let alone its financial, ecological, indigenous, or questionable transparency issues. This failure to communicate openly deprives the public of their right to fully understand and respond to the impacts of the proposal.

Cultural Heritage Concerns
I am also deeply disturbed by the treatment of the Birpai Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) in relation to archaeological investigations. The reported exclusion of the Birpai RAP from test excavations—despite their prior involvement and formal interest—raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The fact that their objections and complaints were never documented in the EIS further demonstrates a lack of integrity and cultural respect.

Withholding of Power Supply Information
I understand that a revised power supply assessment from Essential Energy (dated 4 April 2025) revealed major changes to the electricity route for the WWTP, requiring overhead lines and a new alignment. Yet this was not disclosed in the AR or RTS. The Council’s apparent plan to introduce this as a modification at a later stage is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the principles of open, lawful environmental planning.

Financial and Ethical Issues
I am troubled by the lack of transparency surrounding the project’s funding. No clear explanation has been given about updated costings or where the funds will come from, raising concerns about financial mismanagement and potential burden on ratepayers.
The fact that only two companies were invited to tender—followed by their merger—and the existence of family connections between Council employees and project contractors also raises legitimate questions about the fairness and integrity of the procurement process.

Environmental and Health Risks
I am especially concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with fill materials that reportedly contain asbestos. This poses a serious risk to residents, wildlife, and ecosystems. This risk appears to have been overlooked or ignored in the planning documents.

My Request
Based on these concerns, I respectfully request that the Council:
Immediately suspend further progress on the Thrumster WWTP project until a full and transparent review is undertaken.
Reassess the project site, giving proper consideration to viable alternatives, including upgrades to existing infrastructure at Lake Road and Koala Street.
Disclose a clear financial plan for the entire cost of the project and its funding sources.
Address all outstanding cultural heritage matters with the appropriate involvement of Birpai Traditional Owners.
Conduct an independent environmental and health risk review, particularly relating to the use of potentially hazardous materials.

This project, in its current form, is flawed in both process and substance. It risks long-term environmental, cultural, financial, and social damage. I urge the Council to reconsider the direction of this development and take immediate action to ensure that future decisions reflect integrity, evidence, and respect for all stakeholders.

I write to formally raise significant concerns regarding the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Specifically, I wish to address the omission of critical documents, misleading presentation of information, and serious procedural failures involving both the Council and its consultant, GHD. These actions reflect a broader pattern of conduct that undermines transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the project’s planning and assessment phases.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misrepresentation of Facts
Crucial documents evaluating the viability of the Thrumster WWTP site were deliberately omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), its appendices, and subsequent reports. These documents contained findings that demonstrated the selected site’s clear inferiority—environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically—when compared to alternatives such as Lake Road and Koala Street.
Despite this, the Council and GHD excluded the following key reports from public and departmental scrutiny:
Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023d)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – ECN-022950_MNC000088 – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation on cultural and heritage values

These documents concluded that the selected site is suboptimal due to:
Flood-prone location and associated environmental risks
Cultural heritage disturbance (including artefacts identified during test excavations)
Long-term ecological degradation
Negative social impacts and public health concerns
Higher capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs

Conversely, a progressive upgrade of the existing infrastructure—an option previously supported by the EPA—would:
Improve receiving water quality
Reduce odour and air pollution
Limit cultural and ecological impacts
Require less land disturbance and offsetting
Eliminate major diversions and lower project costs

The intentional exclusion of these findings from the EIS, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR) is both misleading and deceptive, undermining the integrity of the planning process and depriving decision-makers of the full evidence base.

2. Misleading Public Communication and Withheld Cost Information
As of 10 May 2025, the Council’s official website continues to present incomplete and misleading information. The public exhibition period was not properly promoted, denying affected residents an opportunity to engage.
Moreover, substantial cost escalations relating to the construction and delivery of the Thrumster WWTP were not publicly disclosed. This intentional withholding of updated financial information reflects a pattern of opacity designed to avoid scrutiny and reinforces the project's unaffordability relative to superior alternatives.

3. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Archaeological Excavations
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—was unjustly excluded from accessing the site, despite its location on Birpai country.
Only Bunyah Aboriginal Land Council representatives participated in the excavations, even though the site lies outside Bunyah territory. GHD’s subcontractor cited lack of immediate insurance as justification, even though the same Birpai RAP had previously participated in surveys under similar arrangements.
The RAP had raised substantial concerns about:
Excavation methodology
Disregard for identified cultural values
Heritage impacts of proposed works

Despite these objections, no reference to the incident or its implications was made in the EIS, RTS, or AR. This exclusion appears retaliatory and reflects a broader lack of impartiality and cultural sensitivity in the management of heritage processes.

Key questions that remain unanswered:
Why was the Birpai RAP excluded, despite formal registration and prior involvement?
Why were their concerns about excavation methodology ignored?
Why were excavation areas reduced and the process expedited?
Why was the discovery of artefacts dismissed as an anomaly?
Why were further values and complaints omitted from official documentation?

4. Withholding of Critical Power Supply Information
On 4 April 2025, the Council received an updated connection investigation from Essential Energy which revealed that the originally proposed underground conduit route was unfeasible. This required significant changes, including overhead power lines and a revised route—alterations that impact both the project’s footprint and environmental assessment.
This information was deliberately withheld from the AR and RTS and appears to have been reserved for later modification requests—contravening the principles of transparent and accurate environmental assessment.

Conclusion and Formal Requests
The consistent omission of critical documents, misrepresentation of impacts, exclusion of key Indigenous stakeholders, and suppression of cost and infrastructure information represent serious breaches of public trust and statutory obligations. These actions fundamentally compromise the legitimacy of the project’s assessment process.
I respectfully request the following actions:
Immediate independent review of the EIS, RTS, and Amendment Report for accuracy, completeness, and integrity.
Suspension of all planning and approval decisions pending a full investigation and reassessment of omitted reports and comparative analyses.
Transparent re-engagement with affected stakeholders, including the Birpai Traditional Owners, Thrumster network residents, and the Fernbank Creek community.
Public release of all previously withheld documents, including updated cost estimates, site assessments, and utility infrastructure changes.
Referral of the current EIS submission to DPHI and other relevant authorities for comprehensive reassessment, ensuring full transparency and accountability before any project decisions proceed.

The public and affected communities deserve a planning process that is honest, inclusive, and evidence-based. I urge you to take immediate action to rectify these issues and uphold the integrity of environmental and cultural assessment protocols.

I write to formally raise significant concerns regarding the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Specifically, I wish to address the omission of critical documents, misleading presentation of information, and serious procedural failures involving both the Council and its consultant, GHD. These actions reflect a broader pattern of conduct that undermines transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the project’s planning and assessment phases.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misrepresentation of Facts
Crucial documents evaluating the viability of the Thrumster WWTP site were deliberately omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), its appendices, and subsequent reports. These documents contained findings that demonstrated the selected site’s clear inferiority—environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically—when compared to alternatives such as Lake Road and Koala Street.
Despite this, the Council and GHD excluded the following key reports from public and departmental scrutiny:
Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023d)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – ECN-022950_MNC000088 – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation on cultural and heritage values

These documents concluded that the selected site is suboptimal due to:
Flood-prone location and associated environmental risks
Cultural heritage disturbance (including artefacts identified during test excavations)
Long-term ecological degradation
Negative social impacts and public health concerns
Higher capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs

Conversely, a progressive upgrade of the existing infrastructure—an option previously supported by the EPA—would:
Improve receiving water quality
Reduce odour and air pollution
Limit cultural and ecological impacts
Require less land disturbance and offsetting
Eliminate major diversions and lower project costs

The intentional exclusion of these findings from the EIS, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR) is both misleading and deceptive, undermining the integrity of the planning process and depriving decision-makers of the full evidence base.

2. Misleading Public Communication and Withheld Cost Information
As of 10 May 2025, the Council’s official website continues to present incomplete and misleading information. The public exhibition period was not properly promoted, denying affected residents an opportunity to engage.
Moreover, substantial cost escalations relating to the construction and delivery of the Thrumster WWTP were not publicly disclosed. This intentional withholding of updated financial information reflects a pattern of opacity designed to avoid scrutiny and reinforces the project's unaffordability relative to superior alternatives.

3. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Archaeological Excavations
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—was unjustly excluded from accessing the site, despite its location on Birpai country.
Only Bunyah Aboriginal Land Council representatives participated in the excavations, even though the site lies outside Bunyah territory. GHD’s subcontractor cited lack of immediate insurance as justification, even though the same Birpai RAP had previously participated in surveys under similar arrangements.
The RAP had raised substantial concerns about:
Excavation methodology
Disregard for identified cultural values
Heritage impacts of proposed works

Despite these objections, no reference to the incident or its implications was made in the EIS, RTS, or AR. This exclusion appears retaliatory and reflects a broader lack of impartiality and cultural sensitivity in the management of heritage processes.

Key questions that remain unanswered:
Why was the Birpai RAP excluded, despite formal registration and prior involvement?
Why were their concerns about excavation methodology ignored?
Why were excavation areas reduced and the process expedited?
Why was the discovery of artefacts dismissed as an anomaly?
Why were further values and complaints omitted from official documentation?

4. Withholding of Critical Power Supply Information
On 4 April 2025, the Council received an updated connection investigation from Essential Energy which revealed that the originally proposed underground conduit route was unfeasible. This required significant changes, including overhead power lines and a revised route—alterations that impact both the project’s footprint and environmental assessment.
This information was deliberately withheld from the AR and RTS and appears to have been reserved for later modification requests—contravening the principles of transparent and accurate environmental assessment.

Conclusion and Formal Requests
The consistent omission of critical documents, misrepresentation of impacts, exclusion of key Indigenous stakeholders, and suppression of cost and infrastructure information represent serious breaches of public trust and statutory obligations. These actions fundamentally compromise the legitimacy of the project’s assessment process.
I respectfully request the following actions:
Immediate independent review of the EIS, RTS, and Amendment Report for accuracy, completeness, and integrity.
Suspension of all planning and approval decisions pending a full investigation and reassessment of omitted reports and comparative analyses.
Transparent re-engagement with affected stakeholders, including the Birpai Traditional Owners, Thrumster network residents, and the wider community - including those that would benefit from an upgraded Koala Street treatment facility.
Public release of all previously withheld documents, including updated cost estimates, site assessments, and utility infrastructure changes.
Referral of the current EIS submission to DPHI and other relevant authorities for comprehensive reassessment, ensuring full transparency and accountability before any project decisions proceed.

The public and affected communities deserve a planning process that is honest, inclusive, and evidence-based. I urge you to take immediate action to rectify these issues and uphold the integrity of environmental and cultural assessment protocols.

I write to formally object and raise significant concerns regarding the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Specifically, I wish to address the omission of critical documents, misleading presentation of information, and serious procedural failures involving both the Council and its consultant, GHD. These actions reflect a broader pattern of conduct that undermines transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the project’s planning and assessment phases.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misrepresentation of Facts
Crucial documents evaluating the viability of the Thrumster WWTP site were deliberately omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), its appendices, and subsequent reports. These documents contained findings that demonstrated the selected site’s clear inferiority—environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically—when compared to alternatives such as Lake Road and Koala Street.
Despite this, the Council and GHD excluded the following key reports from public and departmental scrutiny:
Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023d)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – ECN-022950_MNC000088 – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation on cultural and heritage values

These documents concluded that the selected site is suboptimal due to:
Flood-prone location and associated environmental risks
Cultural heritage disturbance (including artefacts identified during test excavations)
Long-term ecological degradation
Negative social impacts and public health concerns
Higher capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs

Conversely, a progressive upgrade of the existing infrastructure—an option previously supported by the EPA—would:
Improve receiving water quality
Reduce odour and air pollution
Limit cultural and ecological impacts
Require less land disturbance and offsetting
Eliminate major diversions and lower project costs

The intentional exclusion of these findings from the EIS, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR) is both misleading and deceptive, undermining the integrity of the planning process and depriving decision-makers of the full evidence base.

2. Misleading Public Communication and Withheld Cost Information
As of 10 May 2025, the Council’s official website continues to present incomplete and misleading information. The public exhibition period was not properly promoted, denying affected residents an opportunity to engage.
Moreover, substantial cost escalations relating to the construction and delivery of the Thrumster WWTP were not publicly disclosed. This intentional withholding of updated financial information reflects a pattern of opacity designed to avoid scrutiny and reinforces the project's unaffordability relative to superior alternatives.

3. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Archaeological Excavations
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—was unjustly excluded from accessing the site, despite its location on Birpai country.
Only Bunyah Aboriginal Land Council representatives participated in the excavations, even though the site lies outside Bunyah territory. GHD’s subcontractor cited lack of immediate insurance as justification, even though the same Birpai RAP had previously participated in surveys under similar arrangements.
The RAP had raised substantial concerns about:
Excavation methodology
Disregard for identified cultural values
Heritage impacts of proposed works

Despite these objections, no reference to the incident or its implications was made in the EIS, RTS, or AR. This exclusion appears retaliatory and reflects a broader lack of impartiality and cultural sensitivity in the management of heritage processes.

Key questions that remain unanswered:
Why was the Birpai RAP excluded, despite formal registration and prior involvement?
Why were their concerns about excavation methodology ignored?
Why were excavation areas reduced and the process expedited?
Why was the discovery of artefacts dismissed as an anomaly?
Why were further values and complaints omitted from official documentation?

4. Withholding of Critical Power Supply Information
On 4 April 2025, the Council received an updated connection investigation from Essential Energy which revealed that the originally proposed underground conduit route was unfeasible. This required significant changes, including overhead power lines and a revised route—alterations that impact both the project’s footprint and environmental assessment.
This information was deliberately withheld from the AR and RTS and appears to have been reserved for later modification requests—contravening the principles of transparent and accurate environmental assessment.

Conclusion and Formal Requests
The consistent omission of critical documents, misrepresentation of impacts, exclusion of key Indigenous stakeholders, and suppression of cost and infrastructure information represent serious breaches of public trust and statutory obligations. These actions fundamentally compromise the legitimacy of the project’s assessment process.
I respectfully request the following actions:
Immediate independent review of the EIS, RTS, and Amendment Report for accuracy, completeness, and integrity.
Suspension of all planning and approval decisions pending a full investigation and reassessment of omitted reports and comparative analyses.
Transparent re-engagement with affected stakeholders, including the Birpai Traditional Owners, Thrumster network residents, and the wider community - including those that would benefit from an upgraded Koala Street treatment facility.
Public release of all previously withheld documents, including updated cost estimates, site assessments, and utility infrastructure changes.
Referral of the current EIS submission to DPHI and other relevant authorities for comprehensive reassessment, ensuring full transparency and accountability before any project decisions proceed.

The public and affected communities deserve a planning process that is honest, inclusive, and evidence-based. I urge you to take immediate action to rectify these issues and uphold the integrity of environmental and cultural assessment protocols.

I write to formally object to the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Specifically, I wish to address the omission of critical documents, misleading presentation of information, and serious procedural failures involving both the Council and its consultant, GHD. These actions reflect a broader pattern of conduct that undermines transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the project’s planning and assessment phases.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misrepresentation of Facts
Crucial documents evaluating the viability of the Thrumster WWTP site were deliberately omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), its appendices, and subsequent reports. These documents contained findings that demonstrated the selected site’s clear inferiority—environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically—when compared to alternatives such as Lake Road and Koala Street.
Despite this, the Council and GHD excluded the following key reports from public and departmental scrutiny:
Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023d)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – ECN-022950_MNC000088 – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation on cultural and heritage values

These documents concluded that the selected site is suboptimal due to:
Flood-prone location and associated environmental risks
Cultural heritage disturbance (including artefacts identified during test excavations)
Long-term ecological degradation
Negative social impacts and public health concerns
Higher capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs

Conversely, a progressive upgrade of the existing infrastructure—an option previously supported by the EPA—would:
Improve receiving water quality
Reduce odour and air pollution
Limit cultural and ecological impacts
Require less land disturbance and offsetting
Eliminate major diversions and lower project costs

The intentional exclusion of these findings from the EIS, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR) is both misleading and deceptive, undermining the integrity of the planning process and depriving decision-makers of the full evidence base.

2. Misleading Public Communication and Withheld Cost Information
As of 10 May 2025, the Council’s official website continues to present incomplete and misleading information. The public exhibition period was not properly promoted, denying affected residents an opportunity to engage.
Moreover, substantial cost escalations relating to the construction and delivery of the Thrumster WWTP were not publicly disclosed. This intentional withholding of updated financial information reflects a pattern of opacity designed to avoid scrutiny and reinforces the project's unaffordability relative to superior alternatives.

3. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Archaeological Excavations
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—was unjustly excluded from accessing the site, despite its location on Birpai country.
Only Bunyah Aboriginal Land Council representatives participated in the excavations, even though the site lies outside Bunyah territory. GHD’s subcontractor cited lack of immediate insurance as justification, even though the same Birpai RAP had previously participated in surveys under similar arrangements.
The RAP had raised substantial concerns about:
Excavation methodology
Disregard for identified cultural values
Heritage impacts of proposed works

Despite these objections, no reference to the incident or its implications was made in the EIS, RTS, or AR. This exclusion appears retaliatory and reflects a broader lack of impartiality and cultural sensitivity in the management of heritage processes.

Key questions that remain unanswered:
Why was the Birpai RAP excluded, despite formal registration and prior involvement?
Why were their concerns about excavation methodology ignored?
Why were excavation areas reduced and the process expedited?
Why was the discovery of artefacts dismissed as an anomaly?
Why were further values and complaints omitted from official documentation?

4. Withholding of Critical Power Supply Information
On 4 April 2025, the Council received an updated connection investigation from Essential Energy which revealed that the originally proposed underground conduit route was unfeasible. This required significant changes, including overhead power lines and a revised route—alterations that impact both the project’s footprint and environmental assessment.
This information was deliberately withheld from the AR and RTS and appears to have been reserved for later modification requests—contravening the principles of transparent and accurate environmental assessment.

Conclusion and Formal Requests
The consistent omission of critical documents, misrepresentation of impacts, exclusion of key Indigenous stakeholders, and suppression of cost and infrastructure information represent serious breaches of public trust and statutory obligations. These actions fundamentally compromise the legitimacy of the project’s assessment process.
I respectfully request the following actions:
Immediate independent review of the EIS, RTS, and Amendment Report for accuracy, completeness, and integrity.
Suspension of all planning and approval decisions pending a full investigation and reassessment of omitted reports and comparative analyses.
Transparent re-engagement with affected stakeholders, including the Birpai Traditional Owners, Thrumster network residents, and the wider community - including those that would benefit from an upgraded Koala Street treatment facility.
Public release of all previously withheld documents, including updated cost estimates, site assessments, and utility infrastructure changes.
Referral of the current EIS submission to DPHI and other relevant authorities for comprehensive reassessment, ensuring full transparency and accountability before any project decisions proceed.

The public and affected communities deserve a planning process that is honest, inclusive, and evidence-based. I urge you to take immediate action to rectify these issues and uphold the integrity of environmental and cultural assessment protocols.

I write to formally object to the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Specifically, I wish to address the omission of critical documents, misleading presentation of information, and serious procedural failures involving both the Council and its consultant, GHD. These actions reflect a broader pattern of conduct that undermines transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the project’s planning and assessment phases.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misrepresentation of Facts
Crucial documents evaluating the viability of the Thrumster WWTP site were deliberately omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), its appendices, and subsequent reports. These documents contained findings that demonstrated the selected site’s clear inferiority—environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically—when compared to alternatives such as Lake Road and Koala Street.
Despite this, the Council and GHD excluded the following key reports from public and departmental scrutiny:
Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023d)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – ECN-022950_MNC000088 – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation on cultural and heritage values

These documents concluded that the selected site is suboptimal due to:
Flood-prone location and associated environmental risks
Cultural heritage disturbance (including artefacts identified during test excavations)
Long-term ecological degradation
Negative social impacts and public health concerns
Higher capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs

Conversely, a progressive upgrade of the existing infrastructure—an option previously supported by the EPA—would:
Improve receiving water quality
Reduce odour and air pollution
Limit cultural and ecological impacts
Require less land disturbance and offsetting
Eliminate major diversions and lower project costs

The intentional exclusion of these findings from the EIS, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR) is both misleading and deceptive, undermining the integrity of the planning process and depriving decision-makers of the full evidence base.

2. Misleading Public Communication and Withheld Cost Information
As of 10 May 2025, the Council’s official website continues to present incomplete and misleading information. The public exhibition period was not properly promoted, denying affected residents an opportunity to engage.
Moreover, substantial cost escalations relating to the construction and delivery of the Thrumster WWTP were not publicly disclosed. This intentional withholding of updated financial information reflects a pattern of opacity designed to avoid scrutiny and reinforces the project's unaffordability relative to superior alternatives.

3. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Archaeological Excavations
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—was unjustly excluded from accessing the site, despite its location on Birpai country.
Only Bunyah Aboriginal Land Council representatives participated in the excavations, even though the site lies outside Bunyah territory. GHD’s subcontractor cited lack of immediate insurance as justification, even though the same Birpai RAP had previously participated in surveys under similar arrangements.
The RAP had raised substantial concerns about:
Excavation methodology
Disregard for identified cultural values
Heritage impacts of proposed works

Despite these objections, no reference to the incident or its implications was made in the EIS, RTS, or AR. This exclusion appears retaliatory and reflects a broader lack of impartiality and cultural sensitivity in the management of heritage processes.

Key questions that remain unanswered:
Why was the Birpai RAP excluded, despite formal registration and prior involvement?
Why were their concerns about excavation methodology ignored?
Why were excavation areas reduced and the process expedited?
Why was the discovery of artefacts dismissed as an anomaly?
Why were further values and complaints omitted from official documentation?

4. Withholding of Critical Power Supply Information
On 4 April 2025, the Council received an updated connection investigation from Essential Energy which revealed that the originally proposed underground conduit route was unfeasible. This required significant changes, including overhead power lines and a revised route—alterations that impact both the project’s footprint and environmental assessment.
This information was deliberately withheld from the AR and RTS and appears to have been reserved for later modification requests—contravening the principles of transparent and accurate environmental assessment.

Conclusion and Formal Requests
The consistent omission of critical documents, misrepresentation of impacts, exclusion of key Indigenous stakeholders, and suppression of cost and infrastructure information represent serious breaches of public trust and statutory obligations. These actions fundamentally compromise the legitimacy of the project’s assessment process.
I respectfully request the following actions:
Immediate independent review of the EIS, RTS, and Amendment Report for accuracy, completeness, and integrity.
Suspension of all planning and approval decisions pending a full investigation and reassessment of omitted reports and comparative analyses.
Transparent re-engagement with affected stakeholders, including the Birpai Traditional Owners, Thrumster network residents, and the wider community - including those that would benefit from an upgraded Koala Street treatment facility.
Public release of all previously withheld documents, including updated cost estimates, site assessments, and utility infrastructure changes.
Referral of the current EIS submission to DPHI and other relevant authorities for comprehensive reassessment, ensuring full transparency and accountability before any project decisions proceed.

The public and affected communities deserve a planning process that is honest, inclusive, and evidence-based. I urge you to take immediate action to rectify these issues and uphold the integrity of environmental and cultural assessment protocols.

Letter of objection attached

I live in Sydney but I am a ratepayer of 2 properties in Thumster, Port Macquarie. Until recently I was totally unaware of this proposal, and it's impacts. I write to formally object to the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Specifically, I wish to address the omission of critical documents, misleading presentation of information, and serious procedural failures involving both the Council and its consultant, GHD. These actions reflect a broader pattern of conduct that undermines transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the project’s planning and assessment phases.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misrepresentation of Facts
Crucial documents evaluating the viability of the Thrumster WWTP site were deliberately omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), its appendices, and subsequent reports. These documents contained findings that demonstrated the selected site’s clear inferiority—environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically—when compared to alternatives such as Lake Road and Koala Street.
Despite this, the Council and GHD excluded the following key reports from public and departmental scrutiny:
Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023d)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – ECN-022950_MNC000088 – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation on cultural and heritage values

These documents concluded that the selected site is suboptimal due to:
Flood-prone location and associated environmental risks
Cultural heritage disturbance (including artefacts identified during test excavations)
Long-term ecological degradation
Negative social impacts and public health concerns
Higher capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs

Conversely, a progressive upgrade of the existing infrastructure—an option previously supported by the EPA—would:
Improve receiving water quality
Reduce odour and air pollution
Limit cultural and ecological impacts
Require less land disturbance and offsetting
Eliminate major diversions and lower project costs

The intentional exclusion of these findings from the EIS, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR) is both misleading and deceptive, undermining the integrity of the planning process and depriving decision-makers of the full evidence base.

2. Misleading Public Communication and Withheld Cost Information
As of 10 May 2025, the Council’s official website continues to present incomplete and misleading information. The public exhibition period was not properly promoted, denying affected residents an opportunity to engage.
Moreover, substantial cost escalations relating to the construction and delivery of the Thrumster WWTP were not publicly disclosed. This intentional withholding of updated financial information reflects a pattern of opacity designed to avoid scrutiny and reinforces the project's unaffordability relative to superior alternatives.

3. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Archaeological Excavations
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—was unjustly excluded from accessing the site, despite its location on Birpai country.
Only Bunyah Aboriginal Land Council representatives participated in the excavations, even though the site lies outside Bunyah territory. GHD’s subcontractor cited lack of immediate insurance as justification, even though the same Birpai RAP had previously participated in surveys under similar arrangements.
The RAP had raised substantial concerns about:
Excavation methodology
Disregard for identified cultural values
Heritage impacts of proposed works

Despite these objections, no reference to the incident or its implications was made in the EIS, RTS, or AR. This exclusion appears retaliatory and reflects a broader lack of impartiality and cultural sensitivity in the management of heritage processes.

Key questions that remain unanswered:
Why was the Birpai RAP excluded, despite formal registration and prior involvement?
Why were their concerns about excavation methodology ignored?
Why were excavation areas reduced and the process expedited?
Why was the discovery of artefacts dismissed as an anomaly?
Why were further values and complaints omitted from official documentation?

4. Withholding of Critical Power Supply Information
On 4 April 2025, the Council received an updated connection investigation from Essential Energy which revealed that the originally proposed underground conduit route was unfeasible. This required significant changes, including overhead power lines and a revised route—alterations that impact both the project’s footprint and environmental assessment.
This information was deliberately withheld from the AR and RTS and appears to have been reserved for later modification requests—contravening the principles of transparent and accurate environmental assessment.

Conclusion and Formal Requests
The consistent omission of critical documents, misrepresentation of impacts, exclusion of key Indigenous stakeholders, and suppression of cost and infrastructure information represent serious breaches of public trust and statutory obligations. These actions fundamentally compromise the legitimacy of the project’s assessment process.
I respectfully request the following actions:
Immediate independent review of the EIS, RTS, and Amendment Report for accuracy, completeness, and integrity.
Suspension of all planning and approval decisions pending a full investigation and reassessment of omitted reports and comparative analyses.
Transparent re-engagement with affected stakeholders, including the Birpai Traditional Owners, Thrumster network residents, and the wider community - including those that would benefit from an upgraded Koala Street treatment facility.
Public release of all previously withheld documents, including updated cost estimates, site assessments, and utility infrastructure changes.
Referral of the current EIS submission to DPHI and other relevant authorities for comprehensive reassessment, ensuring full transparency and accountability before any project decisions proceed.

The public and affected communities deserve a planning process that is honest, inclusive, and evidence-based. I urge you to take immediate action to rectify these issues and uphold the integrity of environmental and cultural assessment protocols.

I write to formally raise significant concerns regarding the Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Specifically, I wish to address the omission of critical documents, misleading presentation of information, and serious procedural failures involving both the Council and its consultant, GHD. These actions reflect a broader pattern of conduct that undermines transparency, integrity, and accountability throughout the project’s planning and assessment phases.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misrepresentation of Facts
Crucial documents evaluating the viability of the Thrumster WWTP site were deliberately omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), its appendices, and subsequent reports. These documents contained findings that demonstrated the selected site’s clear inferiority—environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically—when compared to alternatives such as Lake Road and Koala Street.
Despite this, the Council and GHD excluded the following key reports from public and departmental scrutiny:
Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023d)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – ECN-022950_MNC000088 – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation on cultural and heritage values

These documents concluded that the selected site is suboptimal due to:
Flood-prone location and associated environmental risks
Cultural heritage disturbance (including artefacts identified during test excavations)
Long-term ecological degradation
Negative social impacts and public health concerns
Higher capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs

Conversely, a progressive upgrade of the existing infrastructure—an option previously supported by the EPA—would:
Improve receiving water quality
Reduce odour and air pollution
Limit cultural and ecological impacts
Require less land disturbance and offsetting
Eliminate major diversions and lower project costs

The intentional exclusion of these findings from the EIS, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR) is both misleading and deceptive, undermining the integrity of the planning process and depriving decision-makers of the full evidence base.

2. Misleading Public Communication and Withheld Cost Information
As of 10 May 2025, the Council’s official website continues to present incomplete and misleading information. The public exhibition period was not properly promoted, denying affected residents an opportunity to engage.
Moreover, substantial cost escalations relating to the construction and delivery of the Thrumster WWTP were not publicly disclosed. This intentional withholding of updated financial information reflects a pattern of opacity designed to avoid scrutiny and reinforces the project's unaffordability relative to superior alternatives.

3. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Archaeological Excavations
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—was unjustly excluded from accessing the site, despite its location on Birpai country.
Only Bunyah Aboriginal Land Council representatives participated in the excavations, even though the site lies outside Bunyah territory. GHD’s subcontractor cited lack of immediate insurance as justification, even though the same Birpai RAP had previously participated in surveys under similar arrangements.
The RAP had raised substantial concerns about:
Excavation methodology
Disregard for identified cultural values
Heritage impacts of proposed works

Despite these objections, no reference to the incident or its implications was made in the EIS, RTS, or AR. This exclusion appears retaliatory and reflects a broader lack of impartiality and cultural sensitivity in the management of heritage processes.

Key questions that remain unanswered:
Why was the Birpai RAP excluded, despite formal registration and prior involvement?
Why were their concerns about excavation methodology ignored?
Why were excavation areas reduced and the process expedited?
Why was the discovery of artefacts dismissed as an anomaly?
Why were further values and complaints omitted from official documentation?

4. Withholding of Critical Power Supply Information
On 4 April 2025, the Council received an updated connection investigation from Essential Energy which revealed that the originally proposed underground conduit route was unfeasible. This required significant changes, including overhead power lines and a revised route—alterations that impact both the project’s footprint and environmental assessment.
This information was deliberately withheld from the AR and RTS and appears to have been reserved for later modification requests—contravening the principles of transparent and accurate environmental assessment.

Conclusion and Formal Requests
The consistent omission of critical documents, misrepresentation of impacts, exclusion of key Indigenous stakeholders, and suppression of cost and infrastructure information represent serious breaches of public trust and statutory obligations. These actions fundamentally compromise the legitimacy of the project’s assessment process.
I respectfully request the following actions:
Immediate independent review of the EIS, RTS, and Amendment Report for accuracy, completeness, and integrity.
Suspension of all planning and approval decisions pending a full investigation and reassessment of omitted reports and comparative analyses.
Transparent re-engagement with affected stakeholders, including the Birpai Traditional Owners, Thrumster network residents, and the wider community - including those that would benefit from an upgraded Koala Street treatment facility.
Public release of all previously withheld documents, including updated cost estimates, site assessments, and utility infrastructure changes.
Referral of the current EIS submission to DPHI and other relevant authorities for comprehensive reassessment, ensuring full transparency and accountability before any project decisions proceed.

The public and affected communities deserve a planning process that is honest, inclusive, and evidence-based. I urge you to take immediate action to rectify these issues and uphold the integrity of environmental and cultural assessment protocols.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. All residents and ratepayers of Port Macquarie will be directly affected by this development and I have serious concerns about the planning, transparency, environmental impacts, financial impacts, and procedural integrity associated with the project.

Omission of Critical Information
It has come to my attention that several important documents—containing findings that challenge the suitability of the Thrumster site—were omitted from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR). These include the Strategic Wastewater Management Plan, the Discharge Options Assessment, and the Connection Investigation Response from Essential Energy (April 2025), among others.
The excluded information suggests that the selected site is less viable than alternatives like Lake Road or Koala Street, particularly in terms of financial, environmental, cultural, and public health outcomes. The failure to include these assessments undermines the credibility of the entire planning process and appears to reflect a biased agenda rather than evidence-based decision-making.
Limited and Misleading Public Communication
The Council’s public website remains incomplete and misleading. As of 10 May 2025, it still does not provide updated information on major developments such as cost escalations or infrastructure changes. Personally as a resident, until this was brought to my attention I was totally unaware of this project, let alone its financial, ecological, indigenous, or questionable transparency issues. This failure to communicate openly deprives the public of their right to fully understand and respond to the impacts of the proposal.

Cultural Heritage Concerns
I am also deeply disturbed by the treatment of the Birpai Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) in relation to archaeological investigations. The reported exclusion of the Birpai RAP from test excavations—despite their prior involvement and formal interest—raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The fact that their objections and complaints were never documented in the EIS further demonstrates a lack of integrity and cultural respect.

Withholding of Power Supply Information
I understand that a revised power supply assessment from Essential Energy (dated 4 April 2025) revealed major changes to the electricity route for the WWTP, requiring overhead lines and a new alignment. Yet this was not disclosed in the AR or RTS. The Council’s apparent plan to introduce this as a modification at a later stage is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the principles of open, lawful environmental planning.

Financial and Ethical Issues
I am troubled by the lack of transparency surrounding the project’s funding. From what I have read, only about 30% of the required funding has been identified. No clear explanation has been given about where the remaining funds will come from, raising concerns about financial mismanagement and potential burden on ratepayers like myself.
The fact that only two companies were invited to tender—followed by their merger—and the existence of family connections between Council employees and project contractors also raises legitimate questions about the fairness and integrity of the procurement process.

Environmental and Health Risks
I am especially concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with fill materials that reportedly contain asbestos. This poses a serious risk to nearby residents, wildlife, and ecosystems. This risk appears to have been overlooked or ignored in the planning documents.

My Request
Based on these concerns, I respectfully request that the Council:
Immediately suspend further progress on the Thrumster WWTP project until a full and transparent review is undertaken.
Reassess the project site, giving proper consideration to viable alternatives, including upgrades to existing infrastructure at Lake Road and Koala Street.
Disclose a clear financial plan for the entire cost of the project and its funding sources.
Address all outstanding cultural heritage matters with the appropriate involvement of Birpai Traditional Owners.
Conduct an independent environmental and health risk review, particularly relating to the use of potentially hazardous materials.
Rectify consultation failures by engaging directly with residents of Fernbank Creek, whose lives will be most affected by the development.

This project, in its current form, is flawed in both process and substance. It risks long-term environmental, cultural, financial, and social damage. I urge the Council to reconsider the direction of this development and take immediate action to ensure that future decisions reflect integrity, evidence, and respect for all stakeholders.

I am writing in response to Council’s recent submission concerning the proposed wastewater treatment plant and associated infrastructure. As a long-term resident of Fernbank Creek Road, I must express my strong objection to this proposal. The project, as currently presented, appears to be poorly conceived, inadequately investigated, and poses a significant and unacceptable risk to both residents and the surrounding environment.
This paper serves as my clear objection to A Wastewater Treatment plant in the Fernbank Creek vicinity!