Thrumster Wastewater Scheme

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.

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 am a regular visitor to the region, and have many personal friends in Port Macquarie. I have serious concerns with this development's planning, transparency, environmental impacts, financial impacts, and the 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 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. I am a frequent visitor to Port Macquarie and a bird watcher that has spent time in the area of the proposed development, it seems ludicrous that a floodproned wetlands that is so ecologically sensitive could even be considered for such a facility. 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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.
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.
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.

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 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.

Please see attached document for my objection.

On 20 November 2024, a a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners Indigenous Corporation —who had formally expressed interest in participating in archaeological test excavations—I was unjustly barred from accessing the site. This exclusion occurred despite the site being located on Birpai country.
Notably, no representatives from the Birpai Aboriginal Land Council participated in the test excavations. Only Bunyah Aboriginal Council representatives were involved, even though the site lies outside Bunyah country. GHD’s subcontractor justified this exclusion by citing a lack of immediate insurance coverage—despite the same I have previously participated in surveys (including those for the Cowarra Water Supply Scheme) under the insurance cover of the sub-consultant.
The exclusion appears retaliatory, as I had voiced strong concerns over the excavation methodology, disregard for identified cultural values, and potential negative impacts on heritage significance. I filed a formal complaint to the Council, met with Council representatives on 10 February 2025, and shared my feedback. Despite ongoing negotiations for further involvement in heritage surveys for amendments to the EIS (including Cowarra and Thrumster), my concerns remained unresolved.
I later escalated the issue to the Mayor’s office in April 2025. Yet none of these events or the substance of my complaint was disclosed in the EIS or associated reports by GHD and Niche. This omission demonstrates a clear lack of impartiality, transparency, and integrity in how the archaeological process was managed.
Key Concerns:
• I was excluded despite prior invitation and past participation.
• I had concerns regarding excavation methodology and cultural heritage ignored.
• Excavation areas reduced and the process was rushed.
• No report about my exclusion was presented.
• There is a likelihood of more artefacts despite the discovery of one.
• My additional identified values excluded.
• My Complaints and Concerns were not reflected in any documentation.

There is not enough science to back up the implications to both the environment and impact to the local residents and surrounding area.
Another ill conceived project.
The cost of this is concerning, an upgrade of the current facility would be more beneficial.

I object to the submission based on the how much information has been withheld from the public, the implications on the surrounding area, environmental and health implications and cost to the rate payers.
This has been a very dishonest submission.

Letter attached with my objections.

Letter provided in attachment.

I have provided my letter of objection via the attached document.

I have provided my letter as an attachment.

I am writing as a concerned member of the public. I am a frequent visitor to the Port Macquarie area and I'm also an avid bird watcher. I wish to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Scheme (Thrumster WWS). My objection is based on serious concerns regarding the project’s transparency, governance, planning integrity, environmental impact, and public health implications.

Throughout the planning and consultation phases, there have been consistent failures by Council and its consultant, GHD, to engage in an open and accountable process. These failures include the omission of critical documents, exclusion of relevant stakeholders, dissemination of misleading public information, and poor management of cultural heritage responsibilities.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misleading Information
Several vital documents were not disclosed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), appendices, Response to Submissions (RTS), or the Amendment Report. These include:
Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Formal feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation

These reports clearly indicate that the selected site is less suitable than the existing wastewater infrastructure corridor at Lake Road and Koala Street. Withholding this information obstructed informed public engagement and appears to have been done deliberately to support a predetermined outcome.

The currently proposed location is on flood-prone land with known cultural and ecological sensitivity. It offers no apparent advantage over alternative sites, yet it carries significantly greater environmental, financial, and social risks. It is deeply troubling that these risks were not fully disclosed to the public or relevant authorities.

2. Public Health Risks: Airborne Particulates and Water Safety
One particularly alarming omission from Council’s documentation is any reference to airborne dust and particulate matter—despite the fact that many neighboring properties rely on rooftop rainwater collection for drinking water. The potential for construction dust and disturbed soil to carry harmful or carcinogenic particles presents a significant public health risk. Neither the Council nor GHD has adequately addressed this issue in project documents or public responses. This is a legitimate health concern, and the lack of acknowledgement reflects an unacceptable level of diligence and community care.

3. Deceptive Public Communication
As of 10 May 2025, Council's website—ostensibly the primary source of project information—continues to host incomplete and outdated material. The recent exhibition period was not publicly promoted, and new cost projections were not disclosed, despite internal evidence of significant budget overruns. This pattern of withholding and manipulating information has compromised the planning process and further eroded public trust.

4. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Cultural Heritage Work
On 20 November 2024, a representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who was registered to participate in archaeological test excavations—was denied access to the site. This occurred despite the area being within Birpai Country and despite the individual’s prior involvement. In contrast, individuals from an Aboriginal council based outside the project area were permitted to participate. A formal complaint was lodged, followed by meetings with Council officers and the Mayor’s office in February and April 2025. Yet none of these events or concerns were included in the official documentation. The failure to document cultural artefacts found on-site, and the exclusion of local Traditional Owners, constitutes a serious breach of proper heritage consultation practices.

5. Concealment of Power Supply Changes
On 4 April 2025, Council received a revised connection response from Essential Energy indicating that the original underground power supply route was unfeasible. This necessitated a significant shift to overhead cabling, altering the project footprint. This critical information was not included in the RTS or Amendment Report. Intending to submit such changes as a post-approval modification is deceptive and contrary to planning obligations.

6. Environmental, Financial, and Operational Concerns
The currently proposed site presents several critical risks:
It is subject to flooding and waterlogging.
It lies within an ecologically sensitive area with documented endangered species.
It has known cultural heritage significance.
It has high construction and operational costs.

In contrast, the Lake Road and Koala Street site:
Is already partially developed and Council-owned.
Offers a lower-risk, lower-cost alternative.
Aligns with EPA recommendations.
Requires less ecological offsetting and minimal sewer network diversion.
Minimizes odour, visual, and noise impacts for surrounding residents.

Yet, for reasons that remain unexplained, this alternative was never presented transparently or seriously considered during the public consultation process.

7. Procurement and Governance Issues
Only two companies were invited to tender for the project—both of which subsequently merged. There are also reports of familial connections between Council staff and contractors involved in the project. These circumstances raise serious concerns regarding the integrity and fairness of the procurement process.

Moreover, Council has not demonstrated how it intends to finance the majority of the project, with current budgets reportedly covering only around 30% of the expected cost. This lack of transparency creates unacceptable financial uncertainty for ratepayers.

8. Material Safety Concerns: Asbestos in Construction Fill
The proposed use of large volumes of concrete and quarry rock in construction raises another urgent concern. Independent investigations have found that some quarries have supplied materials contaminated with asbestos. This presents a severe risk to public health, especially in a residential and environmentally sensitive area. No environmental or health risk assessment appears to have been undertaken to evaluate this risk in the context of the Thrumster site.

Conclusion and Request for Immediate Action
Given the seriousness of the issues outlined above, I respectfully request that Council:
Immediately suspend the current Thrumster WWS project pending an independent review of the site selection process.
Disclose the full funding strategy and long-term financial implications of the project.
Reopen the tender process to allow broader competition and ensure transparency.
Investigate potential conflicts of interest and publish a probity report on the procurement process.
Conduct an urgent, independent environmental and health risk assessment, especially concerning airborne particulates and potential asbestos contamination.
Reassess the suitability of the Lake Road/Koala Street site as a viable alternative, based on objective and publicly available data.

The serious procedural, environmental, cultural, and ethical shortcomings of the Thrumster WWS planning process make it clear that this project cannot proceed in its current form or location. I urge Council to act responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest.

Sincerely,
Audrey Rangel

Please disregard my first submission. I accidentally uploaded the wrong letter & saved it prematurely before I read it. Below is my personal submission. Please accept my apologies for the earlier error.

I am writing as a concerned resident to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Scheme (Thrumster WWS). My objection is based on serious and substantiated concerns regarding the project’s transparency, governance, planning integrity, environmental impact, and public health implications.

Throughout the planning and consultation phases, there have been consistent failures by Council and its consultant, GHD, to engage in an open and accountable process. These failures include the omission of critical documents, exclusion of relevant stakeholders, dissemination of misleading public information, and poor management of cultural heritage responsibilities.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misleading Information
Several vital documents were not disclosed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), appendices, Response to Submissions (RTS), or the Amendment Report. These include:
Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Formal feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation

These reports clearly indicate that the selected site is less suitable than the existing wastewater infrastructure corridor at Lake Road and Koala Street. Withholding this information obstructed informed public engagement and appears to have been done deliberately to support a predetermined outcome.

The currently proposed location is on flood-prone land with known cultural and ecological sensitivity. It offers no apparent advantage over alternative sites, yet it carries significantly greater environmental, financial, and social risks. It is deeply troubling that these risks were not fully disclosed to the public or relevant authorities.

2. Public Health Risks: Airborne Particulates and Water Safety
One particularly alarming omission from Council’s documentation is any reference to airborne dust and particulate matter—despite the fact that many neighboring properties rely on rooftop rainwater collection for drinking water. The potential for construction dust and disturbed soil to carry harmful or carcinogenic particles presents a significant public health risk. Neither the Council nor GHD has adequately addressed this issue in project documents or public responses. This reflects an unacceptable lack of diligence and community care.

3. Deceptive Public Communication
As of 10 May 2025, Council's website—ostensibly the primary source of project information—continues to host incomplete and outdated material. The recent exhibition period was not publicly promoted, and new cost projections were not disclosed, despite internal evidence of significant budget overruns. This pattern of withholding and manipulating information has compromised the planning process and further eroded public trust.

4. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Cultural Heritage Work
On 20 November 2024, a representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who was registered to participate in archaeological test excavations—was denied access to the site. This occurred despite the area being within Birpai Country and despite the individual’s prior involvement.

In contrast, individuals from an Aboriginal council based outside the project area were permitted to participate. A formal complaint was lodged, followed by meetings with Council officers and the Mayor’s office in February and April 2025. Yet none of these events or concerns were included in the official documentation. The failure to document cultural artefacts found on-site, and the exclusion of local Traditional Owners, constitutes a serious breach of proper heritage consultation practices.

5. Concealment of Power Supply Changes
On 4 April 2025, Council received a revised connection response from Essential Energy indicating that the original underground power supply route was unfeasible. This necessitated a significant shift to overhead cabling, altering the project footprint.

This critical information was not included in the RTS or Amendment Report. Intending to submit such changes as a post-approval modification is deceptive and contrary to planning obligations.

6. Environmental, Financial, and Operational Concerns
The currently proposed site presents several critical risks:
It is subject to flooding and waterlogging.
It lies within an ecologically sensitive area with documented endangered species.
It has known cultural heritage significance.
It has high construction and operational costs.

In contrast, the Lake Road and Koala Street site:
Is already partially developed and Council-owned.
Offers a lower-risk, lower-cost alternative.
Aligns with EPA recommendations.
Requires less ecological offsetting and minimal sewer network diversion.
Minimizes odour, visual, and noise impacts for surrounding residents.

Yet, for reasons that remain unexplained, this alternative was never presented transparently or seriously considered during the public consultation process.

7. Procurement and Governance Issues
Only two companies were invited to tender for the project—both of which subsequently merged. There are also reports of familial connections between Council staff and contractors involved in the project. These circumstances raise serious concerns regarding the integrity and fairness of the procurement process.

Moreover, Council has not demonstrated how it intends to finance the majority of the project, with current budgets reportedly covering only around 30% of the expected cost. This lack of transparency creates unacceptable financial uncertainty for ratepayers.

8. Material Safety Concerns: Asbestos in Construction Fill
The proposed use of large volumes of concrete and quarry rock in construction raises another urgent concern. Independent investigations have found that some quarries have supplied materials contaminated with asbestos. This presents a severe risk to public health, especially in a residential and environmentally sensitive area. No environmental or health risk assessment appears to have been undertaken to evaluate this risk in the context of the Thrumster site.

Conclusion and Request for Immediate Action
Given the seriousness of the issues outlined above, I respectfully request that Council:
Immediately suspend the current Thrumster WWS project pending an independent review of the site selection process.
Disclose the full funding strategy and long-term financial implications of the project.
Reopen the tender process to allow broader competition and ensure transparency.
Investigate potential conflicts of interest and publish a probity report on the procurement process.
Conduct an urgent, independent environmental and health risk assessment, especially concerning airborne particulates and potential asbestos contamination.
Reassess the suitability of the Lake Road/Koala Street site as a viable alternative, based on objective and publicly available data.

The serious procedural, environmental, cultural, and ethical shortcomings of the Thrumster WWS planning process make it clear that this project cannot proceed in its current form or location. I urge Council to act responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest.

Sincerely,
Russell Dick

I am writing as a concerned member of the public to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Scheme (Thrumster WWS). I am a frequent visitor to the Port Macquarie area, and have many friends and family that reside in the area. My objection is based on serious and substantiated concerns regarding the project’s transparency, governance, planning integrity, environmental impact, and public health implications.

Throughout the planning and consultation phases, there have been consistent failures by Council and its consultant, GHD, to engage in an open and accountable process. These failures include the omission of critical documents, exclusion of relevant stakeholders, dissemination of misleading public information, and poor management of cultural heritage responsibilities.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misleading Information
Several vital documents were not disclosed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), appendices, Response to Submissions (RTS), or the Amendment Report. These include:

Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023)
Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)
Connection Investigation Response – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)
Formal feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation

These reports clearly indicate that the selected site is less suitable than the existing wastewater infrastructure corridor at Lake Road and Koala Street. Withholding this information obstructed informed public engagement and appears to have been done deliberately to support a predetermined outcome.

The currently proposed location is on flood-prone land with known cultural and ecological sensitivity. It offers no apparent advantage over alternative sites, yet it carries significantly greater environmental, financial, and social risks. It is deeply troubling that these risks were not fully disclosed to the public or relevant authorities.

2. Public Health Risks: Airborne Particulates and Water Safety
One particularly alarming omission from Council’s documentation is any reference to airborne dust and particulate matter—despite the fact that many neighbouring properties rely on rooftop rainwater collection for drinking water. The potential for construction dust and disturbed soil to carry harmful or carcinogenic particles presents a significant public health risk. Neither the Council nor GHD has adequately addressed this issue in project documents or public responses. These legitimate health concerns have not been addressed and this reflects an unacceptable lack of diligence and community care.

3. Deceptive Public Communication
As of 10 May 2025, Council's website—ostensibly the primary source of project information—continues to host incomplete and outdated material. The recent exhibition period was not publicly promoted, and new cost projections were not disclosed, despite internal evidence of significant budget overruns. This pattern of withholding and manipulating information has compromised the planning process and further eroded public trust.

4. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Cultural Heritage Work
On 20 November 2024, a representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who was registered to participate in archaeological test excavations—was denied access to the site. This occurred despite the area being within Birpai Country and despite the individual’s prior involvement.

In contrast, individuals from an Aboriginal council based outside the project area were permitted to participate. A formal complaint was lodged, followed by meetings with Council officers and the Mayor’s office in February and April 2025. Yet none of these events or concerns were included in the official documentation.

The failure to document cultural artefacts found on-site, and the exclusion of local Traditional Owners, constitutes a serious breach of proper heritage consultation practices.

5. Concealment of Power Supply Changes
On 4 April 2025, Council received a revised connection response from Essential Energy indicating that the original underground power supply route was unfeasible. This necessitated a significant shift to overhead cabling, altering the project footprint.

This critical information was not included in the RTS or Amendment Report. Intending to submit such changes as a post-approval modification is deceptive and contrary to planning obligations.

6. Environmental, Financial, and Operational Concerns
The currently proposed site presents several critical risks:

It is subject to flooding and waterlogging.
It lies within an ecologically sensitive area with documented endangered species.
It has known cultural heritage significance.
It has high construction and operational costs.

In contrast, the Lake Road and Koala Street site:
Is already partially developed and Council-owned.
Offers a lower-risk, lower-cost alternative.
Aligns with EPA recommendations.
Requires less ecological offsetting and minimal sewer network diversion.
Minimizes odour, visual, and noise impacts for surrounding residents.

Yet, for reasons that remain unexplained, this alternative was never presented transparently or seriously considered during the public consultation process.

7. Procurement and Governance Issues
Only two companies were invited to tender for the project—both of which subsequently merged. There are also reports of familial connections between Council staff and contractors involved in the project. These circumstances raise serious concerns regarding the integrity and fairness of the procurement process.

Moreover, Council has not demonstrated how it intends to finance the majority of the project, with current budgets reportedly covering only around 30% of the expected cost. This lack of transparency creates unacceptable financial uncertainty for ratepayers.

8. Material Safety Concerns: Asbestos in Construction Fill
The proposed use of large volumes of concrete and quarry rock in construction raises another urgent concern. Independent investigations have found that some quarries have supplied materials contaminated with asbestos. This presents a severe risk to public health, especially in a residential and environmentally sensitive area.

No environmental or health risk assessment appears to have been undertaken to evaluate this risk in the context of the Thrumster site.

Conclusion and Request for Immediate Action
Given the seriousness of the issues outlined above, I respectfully request that Council:

Immediately suspend the current Thrumster WWS project pending an independent review of the site selection process.
Disclose the full funding strategy and long-term financial implications of the project.
Reopen the tender process to allow broader competition and ensure transparency.
Investigate potential conflicts of interest and publish a probity report on the procurement process.
Conduct an urgent, independent environmental and health risk assessment, especially concerning airborne particulates and potential asbestos contamination.
Reassess the suitability of the Lake Road/Koala Street site as a viable alternative, based on objective and publicly available data.

The serious procedural, environmental, cultural, and ethical shortcomings of the Thrumster WWS planning process make it clear that this project cannot proceed in its current form or location. I urge Council to act responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest.

Sincerely,
Cindy Fielding-Smith

I am writing as a concerned resident to formally object to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Scheme (Thrumster WWS). My objection is based on serious and substantiated concerns regarding the project’s transparency, governance, planning integrity, environmental impact, and public health implications.

Throughout the planning and consultation phases, there have been consistent failures by Council and its consultant, GHD, to engage in an open and accountable process. These failures include the omission of critical documents, exclusion of relevant stakeholders, dissemination of misleading public information, and poor management of cultural heritage responsibilities.

1. Omission of Key Documents and Misleading Information
Several vital documents were not disclosed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), appendices, Response to Submissions (RTS), or the Amendment Report. These include:

Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023)

Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024)

Connection Investigation Response – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025)

Formal feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation

These reports clearly indicate that the selected site is less suitable than the existing wastewater infrastructure corridor at Lake Road and Koala Street. Withholding this information obstructed informed public engagement and appears to have been done deliberately to support a predetermined outcome.

The currently proposed location is on flood-prone land with known cultural and ecological sensitivity. It offers no apparent advantage over alternative sites, yet it carries significantly greater environmental, financial, and social risks. It is deeply troubling that these risks were not fully disclosed to the public or relevant authorities.

2. Public Health Risks: Airborne Particulates and Water Safety
One particularly alarming omission from Council’s documentation is any reference to airborne dust and particulate matter—despite the fact that many neighbouring properties rely on rooftop rainwater collection for drinking water.

The potential for construction dust and disturbed soil to carry harmful or carcinogenic particles presents a significant public health risk. Neither the Council nor GHD has adequately addressed this issue in project documents or public responses. This is an unacceptable response to legitimate health concerns and reflects an unacceptable lack of diligence and community care.

3. Deceptive Public Communication
As of 10 May 2025, Council's website—ostensibly the primary source of project information—continues to host incomplete and outdated material. The recent exhibition period was not publicly promoted, and new cost projections were not disclosed, despite internal evidence of significant budget overruns.

This pattern of withholding and manipulating information has compromised the planning process and further eroded public trust.

4. Exclusion of Birpai RAP from Cultural Heritage Work
On 20 November 2024, a representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—who was registered to participate in archaeological test excavations—was denied access to the site. This occurred despite the area being within Birpai Country and despite the individual’s prior involvement.

In contrast, individuals from an Aboriginal council based outside the project area were permitted to participate. A formal complaint was lodged, followed by meetings with Council officers and the Mayor’s office in February and April 2025. Yet none of these events or concerns were included in the official documentation.

The failure to document cultural artefacts found on-site, and the exclusion of local Traditional Owners, constitutes a serious breach of proper heritage consultation practices.

5. Concealment of Power Supply Changes
On 4 April 2025, Council received a revised connection response from Essential Energy indicating that the original underground power supply route was unfeasible. This necessitated a significant shift to overhead cabling, altering the project footprint.

This critical information was not included in the RTS or Amendment Report. Intending to submit such changes as a post-approval modification is deceptive and contrary to planning obligations.

6. Environmental, Financial, and Operational Concerns
The currently proposed site presents several critical risks:

It is subject to flooding and waterlogging.

It lies within an ecologically sensitive area with documented endangered species.

It has known cultural heritage significance.

It has high construction and operational costs.

In contrast, the Lake Road and Koala Street site:

Is already partially developed and Council-owned.

Offers a lower-risk, lower-cost alternative.

Aligns with EPA recommendations.

Requires less ecological offsetting and minimal sewer network diversion.

Minimizes odour, visual, and noise impacts for surrounding residents.

Yet, for reasons that remain unexplained, this alternative was never presented transparently or seriously considered during the public consultation process.

7. Procurement and Governance Issues
Only two companies were invited to tender for the project—both of which subsequently merged. There are also reports of familial connections between Council staff and contractors involved in the project. These circumstances raise serious concerns regarding the integrity and fairness of the procurement process.

Moreover, Council has not demonstrated how it intends to finance the majority of the project, with current budgets reportedly covering only around 30% of the expected cost. This lack of transparency creates unacceptable financial uncertainty for ratepayers.

8. Material Safety Concerns: Asbestos in Construction Fill
The proposed use of large volumes of concrete and quarry rock in construction raises another urgent concern. Independent investigations have found that some quarries have supplied materials contaminated with asbestos. This presents a severe risk to public health, especially in a residential and environmentally sensitive area.

No environmental or health risk assessment appears to have been undertaken to evaluate this risk in the context of the Thrumster site.

Conclusion and Request for Immediate Action
Given the seriousness of the issues outlined above, I respectfully request that Council:

Immediately suspend the current Thrumster WWS project pending an independent review of the site selection process.

Disclose the full funding strategy and long-term financial implications of the project.

Reopen the tender process to allow broader competition and ensure transparency.

Investigate potential conflicts of interest and publish a probity report on the procurement process.

Conduct an urgent, independent environmental and health risk assessment, especially concerning airborne particulates and potential asbestos contamination.

Reassess the suitability of the Lake Road/Koala Street site as a viable alternative, based on objective and publicly available data.

The serious procedural, environmental, cultural, and ethical shortcomings of the Thrumster WWS planning process make it clear that this project cannot proceed in its current form or location. I urge Council to act responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest.

Sincerely,
Alison Hockley

I am writing to formally express my serious concerns regarding the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme (Thrumster WWS) project, its associated consultation processes, and the treatment of affected stakeholders.

Omission of Critical Documentation and Public Misrepresentation
A central issue with the Thrumster WWS project is the systematic and deliberate exclusion of crucial documentation from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), appendices, Response to Submissions (RTS), and Amendment Report (AR). Documents such as the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme – Strategic Wastewater Management Plan (Beca HunterH2O, 2023), Discharge Options Assessment (Beca HunterH2O, February 2024), and Connection Investigation Response – Thrumster Sewer Scheme V3 (April 2025), along with feedback from the Birpai Traditional Owners Corporation, were known to the Council and its consultant GHD, yet were deliberately withheld from public view and review by regulatory authorities.

These documents collectively demonstrate that the selected Thrumster WWS site is significantly inferior to alternatives like Koala Street and Lake Road, when assessed across financial, environmental, ecological, flood risk, water quality, social, and public health dimensions. Instead of pursuing a progressive and lower-impact upgrade of existing infrastructure—as supported by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)—the Council appears to be advancing a costlier and more disruptive option with little justification.

Furthermore, misleading information continues to be presented via the Council’s official website, which has failed to publicly promote exhibition periods or accurately disclose escalating project costs. This lack of transparency has misled the public and further obstructed genuine community engagement.

Exclusion of Key Stakeholders and Community Voices
Neighbouring residents, including those of Fernbank Creek, have been consistently excluded from consultation processes concerning both the wastewater treatment plant and the effluent discharge location. A notable example is the July 2023 meeting regarding effluent discharge to the creek, which directly impacts our community—yet we were not informed or invited to participate.

By contrast, other community groups such as Hastings Birdwatchers, Friends of Kooloonbung Creek, and the North Shore Progress Association were included in the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). The intentional omission of directly affected residents undermines the integrity and fairness of the consultation process and contravenes the principles of equitable stakeholder engagement.

Disregard for Cultural Heritage and Consultation Protocols
On 20 November 2024, a registered representative of the Birpai Traditional Owners—approved to participate in archaeological test excavations—was denied access to the project site by GHD’s subcontractor. This exclusion occurred despite previous participation and insurance arrangements, and despite the fact that the site lies within Birpai country.

No representatives from the Birpai Aboriginal Land Council were involved in these investigations, whereas participants from the Bunyah Aboriginal Council—operating outside the project area—were permitted on site. Artefacts discovered during excavations, along with cultural and ecological findings, were not documented in the final reports, despite formal complaints and follow-up meetings with Council officials and the Mayor's office.

This not only breaches accepted standards for heritage consultation but also demonstrates a failure to respect the cultural custodianship of the Birpai people.

Environmental and Public Health Concerns
A critical omission in the Council’s documentation is the failure to address airborne particle pollution, particularly concerning residents who rely on rooftop rainwater harvesting for drinking. Airborne contaminants, including known carcinogens, present a serious public health risk that has not been considered or mitigated in project plans.

Responses from the Council and GHD to these concerns have been inadequate, factually incorrect, and dismissive. For example, in addressing odour issues, the Council proposed installing a covered inlet without an Odour Control Unit (OCU), noting this would reduce infrastructure lifespan. Such reasoning is unacceptable. The obvious and responsible solution would be to install an OCU—not compromise residents’ health and quality of life.

Council responses have been vague and non-committal, using language such as “additional mitigation if deemed required,” which lacks measurable criteria or enforceable accountability. Residents living near the existing Koala Street treatment plant can attest to the Council’s historical failure to address odour complaints—despite persistent community feedback. Driving past Koala Street at night remains a deeply unpleasant experience, with no meaningful intervention from the Council.

Impact on Property, Livelihood, and Wellbeing
Separately, the Council approached my wife and me regarding a proposed flood-free access road that would traverse our property. We responded in good faith, open to negotiations to find a fair and equitable outcome. The road, however, would have passed directly in front of the site approved for our future family home—rendering it uninhabitable in its original form.

In response, we initiated plans to relocate the house to another part of our block and re-submit a development application. Even with this compromise, our new access would still be shared, and Council has since exerted increasing pressure, culminating in a notice of potential compulsory acquisition or easement—without any guarantee of development approval for the relocated site.

This coercive approach has caused significant stress and anxiety for our family, particularly as we had previously received assurances from the Council that we would not be disadvantaged. Instead, we now face the risk of being left with a property that cannot reasonably be used for its intended purpose, despite our consistent cooperation.

Call for Oversight and Investigation
The cumulative effect of these actions—deliberate document omissions, misleading public communication, stakeholder exclusion, cultural disregard, and aggressive land acquisition tactics—paints a deeply troubling picture of governance and process management.

This situation warrants formal investigation by independent oversight bodies such as the Office of the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), particularly given the substantial public funds at stake and the pattern of mismanagement exhibited by the Council and its consultants.

Conclusion
The Thrumster WWS project, as currently designed and administered, fails the tests of transparency, accountability, and public interest. A more appropriate solution—upgrading the Koala Street and Lake Road facilities—has been sidelined in favour of a less suitable, more expensive, and more damaging alternative.

It is imperative that this matter receive serious and immediate scrutiny. Our community deserves a process that respects cultural heritage, protects public health, and upholds basic standards of fairness and integrity.

Yours sincerely,
Russell Dick