Thrumster Wastewater Scheme

Dear Port Macquarie-Hastings Council,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Scheme, specifically the sewer plant site on Fernbank Creek Road, Fernbank Creek. As a resident of the area, I am deeply concerned about the environmental, flood-related, and procedural issues associated with this proposal.
Flood Risk in a Swampy Location: The proposed site is a low-lying, swampy area near Fernbank Creek and the Hastings River, making it highly susceptible to flooding. Historical flood patterns in this region indicate a significant risk of inundation, which could lead to operational failures at the sewer plant and environmental contamination, such as untreated wastewater spills into local waterways. I urge the council to reconsider this location due to its unsuitability for critical infrastructure.
Ecological Impact on Wetlands: The site appears to function as a wetland, likely supporting protected species and contributing to biodiversity. The PMHC’s own planning documents emphasize conserving high-conservation-value areas in Fernbank Creek. Construction here risks irreversible harm to local ecosystems, disrupting hydrology and wildlife habitats. I request a thorough environmental impact assessment to evaluate these risks and consider alternative sites with lower ecological value.
Inconsistency in Flood Risk Management: The council has restricted residential development in Fernbank Creek due to flood risks, yet this sewer plant is being proposed in a similarly vulnerable area. This discrepancy undermines trust in the planning process. While I understand the need to address sewage capacity, approving a plant in a flood-prone zone while denying dwellings appears inconsistent and prioritises infrastructure over community fairness. I ask for clarity on why this site was chosen and how flood risks will be mitigated without compromising environmental safety.
Lack of Transparency and Community Engagement: The proposal’s details, including site selection criteria and flood mitigation plans, have not been adequately communicated to the community. As a resident, I feel excluded from meaningful consultation. I request that the council suspend the project’s approval process until a comprehensive public consultation period is held, allowing residents to fully understand and provide input on the scheme’s impacts.
In light of these concerns, I urge the PMHC to:
Suspend the approval process for the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme until alternative, less flood-prone sites are thoroughly explored.
Conduct and publicly release a detailed flood risk assessment and environmental impact study for the Fernbank Creek Road site.
Extend the public consultation period to ensure all community members, particularly those in Fernbank Creek, Thrumster, and Sancrox, can voice their concerns and receive clear answers.
I support the need for infrastructure to enable growth, but this must not come at the expense of our environment, community trust, or safety. I look forward to your response and hope the council will prioritize sustainable and transparent planning in this matter.

Please find my written submission attached. Kind regards, Jennifer Berger, resident of Fernbank Creek Road.

I am concerned about the environmental impact during the construction phase of the project. There large variety of bird species supported by the wetlands which will be directly impacted by this project.

I have attached a Word document as my submission.

My objection is quite detailed
please see attachment

I object to the Wastewater Project proceeding off Fernbank Creek Rd as per the attached files.

I have made a detailed objection please refer to the attached document

Hastings Birdwatchers believe that there are some modifications to the operational and construction procedures of the project that are necessary to protect threatened species, in particular the Grass Owl . There are also additional threatened species with in the site that were not captured during environmental surveys.
Details outlining our concerns and requested changes are laid out in the attachment

I am submitting a 7-page document detailing my informed and sincere objection to the so-called "Thrumster Wastewater Scheme." The name itself is misleading—this facility is not located in Thrumster, but in Fernbank Creek. It is clear that by referring to it incorrectly, the Council is obscuring the reality: this is a plan to build a sewage treatment plant in the midst of a sensitive creek environment.

Proceeding with this project exposes both the Council and the State to serious financial and legal risks. The location is highly unsuitable, posing a real danger of flood-related damage and accidents—risks so significant that insurance companies may refuse coverage or demand prohibitively high premiums. These liabilities, combined with the already inflated project costs, could far exceed the financial capacity of Port Macquarie Hastings Council and potentially lead to financial ruin for the Council, placing an undue burden on ratepayers.

I am submitting a 7-page document detailing my informed and sincere objection to the so-called "Thrumster Wastewater Scheme." The name itself is misleading—this facility is not located in Thrumster, but in Fernbank Creek. It is clear that by referring to it incorrectly, the Council is obscuring the reality: this is a plan to build a sewage treatment plant in the midst of a sensitive creek environment.
Proceeding with this project exposes both the Council and the State to serious financial and legal risks. The location is highly unsuitable, posing a real danger of flood-related damage and accidents—risks so significant that insurance companies may refuse coverage or demand prohibitively high premiums. These liabilities, combined with the already inflated project costs, could far exceed the financial capacity of Port Macquarie Hastings Council and potentially lead to financial ruin for the Council, placing an undue burden on ratepayers.

I am submitting a 7-page document detailing my informed and sincere objection to the so-called "Thrumster Wastewater Scheme." The name itself is misleading—this facility is not located in Thrumster, but in Fernbank Creek. It is clear that by referring to it incorrectly, the Council is obscuring the reality: this is a plan to build a sewage treatment plant in the midst of a sensitive creek environment.
Proceeding with this project exposes both the Council and the State to serious financial and legal risks. The location is highly unsuitable, posing a real danger of flood-related damage and accidents—risks so significant that insurance companies may refuse coverage or demand prohibitively high premiums. These liabilities, combined with the already inflated project costs, could far exceed the financial capacity of Port Macquarie Hastings Council and potentially lead to financial ruin for the Council, placing an undue burden on ratepayers.

I am submitting a 7-page document detailing my informed and sincere objection to the so-called "Thrumster Wastewater Scheme." The name itself is misleading—this facility is not located in Thrumster, but in Fernbank Creek. It is clear that by referring to it incorrectly, the Council is obscuring the reality: this is a plan to build a sewage treatment plant in the midst of a sensitive creek environment.
Proceeding with this project exposes both the Council and the State to serious financial and legal risks. The location is highly unsuitable, posing a real danger of flood-related damage and accidents—risks so significant that insurance companies may refuse coverage or demand prohibitively high premiums. These liabilities, combined with the already inflated project costs, could far exceed the financial capacity of Port Macquarie Hastings Council and potentially lead to financial ruin for the Council, placing an undue burden on ratepayers.

I have attached my submission.

Please see attachment for my submission of Objection to the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme SSI-56980459

I am submitting a 7-page document detailing my informed and sincere objection to the so-called "Thrumster Wastewater Scheme." The name itself is misleading—this facility is not located in Thrumster, but in Fernbank Creek. It is clear that by referring to it incorrectly, the Council is obscuring the reality: this is a plan to build a sewage treatment plant in the midst of a sensitive creek environment.
Proceeding with this project exposes both the Council and the State to serious financial and legal risks. The location is highly unsuitable, posing a real danger of flood-related damage and accidents—risks so significant that insurance companies may refuse coverage or demand prohibitively high premiums. These liabilities, combined with the already inflated project costs, could far exceed the financial capacity of Port Macquarie Hastings Council and potentially lead to financial ruin for the Council, placing an undue burden on ratepayers.

I am submitting a 7 page document outlining my informed and sincere objection to the so called "Thrumster Wastewater Scheme". The name itself is misleading-the facility is not located in Thrumster, but in Fernbank Creek. It is clear that by referring to it incorrectly, , the council is obscuring the reality: this is a plan to build a sewage treatment plant in the midst of a sensitive creek's environment.
Proceeding with the project exposes both the council and the state to serious financial and legal risks. The location is highly unsuitable, posing a real danger of flood related damage an accidents-risks so significant that insurance companies may refuse coverage or demand prohibitively high premiums (such is the case for the private properties in this location). These Liabilities combined with the already inflated project costs, could far exceed the financial capacity of Port Macquarie Hastings Council and potentially lead to financial ruin or the Council, placing an undue buren on ratepayers.

Please see attached document

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, as follows:
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 who 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.
Thank you for your consideration of this objection.

Please upgrade the existing waste water plant at Koala St first. I've heard it is significantly cheaper to upgrade this plant. I would drive home past it frequently and the odour is terrible at times. There are some great suburbs on the fringe of this plant that could be improved by reducing odour.

This project would be detrimental to the environment in the surrounding areas. There isn’t enough research to support the demand or evidence to indicate this is the best location to to build this. Would be a lot more cost effective to upgrade the current facility rather than use tax payers money.