Thrumster Wastewater Scheme

As a regular visitor to Port Macquarie and an avid birdwatcher, I would like 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. The dismissive tone used in response to legitimate health concerns 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,
Robert Rangel

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 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. The dismissive tone used in response to legitimate health concerns 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 upgrade option:
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. The last thing ratepayers want to see is a repeat of the Glasshouse Arts Performing Arts Centre project, which resulted in outrageous costs to the ratepayers and ended with the dismissal of Council.

Sincerely,
Mike Hockley

I have heard through community that there has been Indigenous artefacts in this area and so needs be left alone for Land Council to culturally protect the area and utilise the area for 'On Country' activities....more consult with elders.
Also.....this is flood plain often..very often. Friends and family in this area get inundated with water. If treatment plant operates then will take away the tranquility of lifestyle , lots of traffic, smelly etc

I am a high school student who walks everyday along Fernbank Creek Rd to the bus stop at Hastings River Drive, often with my sisters. My parents have informed Council and GHD numerous times about the issue of safety for pedestrians like myself. Why has Council and GHD misled the Derpartment of PHI in their RTS where they state that there is no pedestrian activity expected?
I also walk my dog everyday on the road where I see heaps of other pedestrians and cyclists.
Why is the Council risking my safety?
With the noise and vibration expected during construction, how am I expected to study and sleep well?
I also attend a local high school which will also be affected by noise and vibration. I am very effected by this project

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns.

I am writing to express my serious objections to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Project, which is planned for construction near my residence at 461 Fernbank Creek Road. Unfortunately, my earlier objections were not adequately addressed by the consultants. I wish to elaborate further below.

Impact on My Land, My Family, and Our Wellbeing

I am deeply concerned about the disruption this project will cause during both the construction and the operation and maintenance phases. As the nearest resident—whose home lies directly in the path of all site-bound traffic—I have been advised by subject matter experts that the impact will be so severe that I may need to seek alternative accommodation for my family of five. To date, there has been no mention of restitution or support from the Council for this disruption.

Even after commissioning, routine maintenance activities will bring frequent traffic to the site, comparable to levels expected during the construction phase. How are we expected to maintain our quality of life under these circumstances?

The ongoing presence of drive-in/drive-out construction and operations personnel raises serious concerns about local security. Given the current housing shortage in Port Macquarie, there is a heightened risk of illegal camping and trespassing on neighbouring properties. Why did the Social Impact Assessment fail to highlight these risks or propose mitigation measures? How can residents be expected to feel safe in this environment?

Environmental and Health Risks

The estimated duration for the project—from initial fill material transfer to commissioning—is approximately five years. During this time, we will endure relentless noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic from fill transfer, construction equipment, concrete mixers, hazardous material deliveries, and more.

This presents significant health and safety risks, particularly to my young family. Risks include:

Increased traffic incidents on a rural road.

Airborne particulates contaminating our rooftop water supply.

Noise and vibration with both physical and psychological effects.

These issues have been grossly underestimated and inadequately addressed. The dismissive nature of the responses to my previous objections has caused significant stress and anxiety for my family and other nearby residents.

Flooding, Fire, and Natural Hazards

In my time here, I have witnessed grass fires, peat fires, bogged fire engines, and flooding. Climate change is expected to make these events more frequent and severe. Yet, Council proposes to establish an elevated pad in the middle of a floodplain—affecting flood velocity and elevation, and worsening erosion and sedimentation. These impacts were shown in flood modelling but left unmitigated. No compensation, land buyback, or offset measures have been proposed.

Additionally, the absence of a standalone stormwater management report (as would be expected in similar projects across NSW) is a glaring omission. Impacts from hard surfaces and steep embankments—such as increased erosion and sedimentation—have not been adequately studied or mitigated.

Similarly, the Bushfire Hazard Assessment failed to consider the increased risk of grass and peat fires due to human activity, and the inability of existing fire trails to provide adequate access to sand plains and bushland. The consequences of these fires, which can burn underground for weeks or months, were ignored.

Ecological Impact

It is disheartening that an area of such high ecological and aesthetic value is being considered for a project of this magnitude. The environmental impact on endangered species—such as the giant dragonfly, flying possum, wallum froglet, nesting magpie geese, jabiru, marsh harriers, and emu wrens—is severe and irreversible.

The proposed "offsets" are wholly inadequate, involving only a small remnant of the floodplain. This land holds significant cultural, ecological, and social value. As outlined by the Hastings Birdwatchers, this site is of national importance for birdwatching, attracting visitors from across Australia.

These major ecological risks have been downplayed by both the consultant and the Council in a way that is misleading, inappropriate, and unprofessional.

Broader Community Impact

Council’s strategic planning appears to prioritise rapid urban development at the expense of infrastructure and community wellbeing. Roads and cycleways have been neglected, traffic congestion is worsening, and health and recreational facilities are under strain.

The decision to build a sewage treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive, flood- and fire-prone area is baffling. The project requires unnecessary directional drilling beneath creeks and roads to divert sewer westward, only to return effluent eastward to Kooloonbung Creek—placing undue pressure on the city’s social, environmental, and heritage assets.

This inefficiency and lack of foresight are alarming.

The selected location at Fernbank Creek is particularly unsuitable. When the peat last caught fire in 2019, it burned for six months, despite regular helicopter water-bombing. The Council’s own poly pipe infrastructure was destroyed in that blaze—a stark reminder of the risks involved in investing heavily in this area.

The risk of damage to underground pipelines from future peat fires—and subsequent uncontained discharge of sewage into the surrounding environment—has been ignored in the Environmental Impact Statement. This demonstrates a shocking lack of rigour and consultation.

Cultural and Heritage Concerns

The presence of Indigenous artefacts on site raises significant heritage concerns. It is troubling that the survey appears to have been halted—possibly to avoid further discoveries that might threaten the project. To my knowledge, the Birpai Aboriginal Land Council was not involved in the excavation process, while RAPs from unrelated councils conducted test digs. This is a grave oversight and a serious error of judgement by both the consultant and the Council.

Infrastructure Mismanagement

The Oxley Highway and hospital access road are already overloaded. There are no planned upgrades within the next 5–10 years. Adding more dwellings without appropriate infrastructure planning is irresponsible.

This "housing first, infrastructure later" approach results in rushed decisions and untenable outcomes. It raises concerns about potential undisclosed secondary interests driving such poor planning decisions.

A Better Alternative

I understand there is a feasible alternative: upgrading the existing Port Macquarie Wastewater Treatment Plant. Surprisingly, this would be less costly than rerouting sewerage and returning effluent in opposing directions. This solution would also better address current environmental and community impacts.

Although I don’t live near Koala Street, I am aware of ongoing odour complaints from that area. It is troubling that gradual upgrades to this existing site have been overlooked in favour of a much riskier, more damaging development at Fernbank Creek.

Conclusion

I strongly urge the relevant authorities not to approve this development. The growing awareness of its environmental, social, cultural, and economic unsuitability presents an opportunity to pursue a better solution—one that respects the people, wildlife, and heritage of the Hastings region.

Regards,

Dr Michael Potter

Objection to the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme
Submitted by: Sandra Hindman, Birpai LALC Member
Date: 14 May 2025
To Whom It May Concern,
RE: Objection to the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme
We, the Members of the Birpai Local Aboriginal Land Council, wish to raise strong objections to the proposed Thrumster Wastewater Scheme.
This project is located on Birpai Country, and we are deeply concerned that the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage has not been properly investigated or protected. The current reports only mention 38 artefacts, and visibility during the site inspection was very low — between 10% and 20%. This tells us that many more cultural items may still be present and have not been found.
Birpai LALC was not properly included in the inspection or consultation process, even though we are the recognised Traditional Custodians of this land. This is not acceptable and goes against the respect and care that should be shown when planning developments on Aboriginal land.
We also have concerns about the destruction of native bushland, threats to endangered animals, and health risks to nearby families. Important documents have been left out of the public reports, and local residents and Traditional Owners have not been given a fair chance to be heard.
For these reasons, we ask that:
• The project is paused immediately;
• A proper Aboriginal Cultural Heritage inspection is done with Birpai LALC present;
• All missing reports are released to the public;
• A new location for the wastewater facility is considered.
We ask that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure listen to our voices and take the right steps to protect Birpai Country and culture.
Yours sincerely,
Sandra Hindman
Birpai Local Aboriginal Land Council Member

As a resident here we know the people of Fernbank Creek have had enough to contend with after the recent floods and don't need the added stress and consequences of all that this entails.I am no scientist,but totally agree with all the objections our knowledgable neighbours have put forth.I have lived on Fernbank creek Rd all my life,64 years, and absolutely love our neighbour hood and greatly respect our neighbours and their opinions.I have seen the escalation in traffic conditions and the lack of peacefulness that was,and am thankful that I no longer have children who need to walk the road to get to the bus stop as the traffic is too dangerous.I have also seen the decline in the state of the creeks.Living right on Partridge Creek we have seen the result of the Acid Sulphate issues and shudder to think how much worse it would be with Sewage Over flow added to the mix.We once could swim and fish in both Fernbank and Partridge creeks,but it is too conaminated now to do either and we would hate to see it get any worse.As my husband and I both have health problems,to worry about the issues of contaminates to our Tank Water ,and the bad odours are constantly on our minds.There just has to be a better way. Yours sincerely Rebecca Rumble (wife of Peter Rumble) 403 Fernbank Creek RD

I have lived in the same house for the past 45 years,and I walk Fernbank Creek Rd every day because of health reasons and have to fight with the traffic as it is,without putting more construction traffic on the road. As a rate payer of Fernbank Creek, I will eventually have to pay for this Sewage system,along with the rest of town,and we at Fernbank Creek will get no benefit from it what so ever,but will have to put up with the smell and the Destruction of our water ways.We already have the problem of Acid Sulphate in Partridge Creek and Fernbank Creek through mismanagement and we certainly dont want to escalate the problem.We also need to think of the effect it will have on our bird life and the bird watchers and photographers who use the area regularly.There is also the problem of all this land being flood prone,as is evident after the floods of 2021.The disturbance of this low land is what causes the Acid sulphate and there is no getting around this problem.Another concern is air born particles from the treatment plant getting in our Drinking water,as we are all on Tank water,(NO TOWN WATER),There just has to be a better alternative that does not have such an impact on our environment.

This project is being constructed in a wildlife corridor where various birds of national significance reside. Not all of these have been addressed in the proposal.
The site is generally unsuitable for a waste treatment plant, it requires significant costs to raise the height and significant investment will be required to pump the waste into the town facilities to then release into the river. Could the money be better spent by looking at options for significantly upgrading the existing facility?

The Thrumster Wastewater Scheme is a major development proposed on Birpai land — and Birpai LALC was not properly consulted in the cultural heritage inspections. The current reports only recorded 38 artefacts with very poor visibility (10–20%), which means much more could be buried and undiscovered.
Please stop this project until:
✅ Proper site inspections are done
✅ Cultural heritage is fully protected
✅ Missing reports are made public

Please see attached Submission

As a Birrpai Man whos ancestors have be connected to the Wauchope/Port Macquarie/Gloucester/Taree/Kempsey communities for 5 generations minus my mother and myself , as which i have returned and lived on country a year ago and look to return to Birrpai Country very shortly i reject this proposal on the grounds of:
A LACK OF PROPER SITE INSPECTION IN REGARDS TO CULTURAL EVIDENCE

NOT A GUARANTEE ON UPHOLDING CULTURAL HERITAGE AND LIAISING WITH LALC AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS

SUSPECTED HIDING OF REPORTS AND FINDINGS ON THE PROPOSED SITE AREA

I suggest if the NSW government takes the First Nations people of this country seriously these steps need to be taken to ensure that the NSW shows that they truly respect us BIRRPAI/BIRPI/BIRIPI people.

Contact me if you would like my thoughts my contact details are in my account

I have shown you respect by writing this respect me by replying back with comments made towards the key points i identitfied and contact the Birpi/Bunya/Purfleet/Kempsey/Dunghutti Elders LALC with the same information i request

Marrumbu

Birrpai/Wiradyuri Man Cale James Burge

I have been visiting this area for 10 years and have been delighted, as an avid birdwatcher, to see a huge range of wetland birds, including Magpie geese, Swift parrot, e Emu Wren and Marsh Harriers.
I cannot help but think that this project will inevitably adversely affect these populations both during the construction phase and for the lifetime of the works.
It is widely accepted that wetlands should not be compromised.
I also have grandchildren being raised in this area who may be impacted during,particularly, the construction phase of this project due to potentially harmful, asbestos materials to be brought in from a quarry.
Also my concern includes sewage overflow in a peat based swamp. I have witnessed the flooding of this swamp in the years I have been visiting and feel this could cause serious health risks for both people and the natural species.

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

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

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.

Ref: 6155_303
2 September 2024
The Hon. Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
4 Parramatta Square
12 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
Via: https://majorprojectsplanningportal.nsw.gov.au
Attention: Mr Nick Hearfield
Subject: Submission in Support – SSI-56980459 Thrumster Wastewater Scheme
Dear Mr Hearfield,
We write in response to the public exhibition of the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) application. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission. We wish to express our full support for the proposal.
This submission is made on behalf of:
• Landowner of 60 John Oxley Drive, Port Macquarie NSW 2444
The property is located within the John Oxley Drive Structure Plan area, specifically in the Health and Education Precinct. This strategic location makes the site ideally suited for development that supports surrounding health, education, and employment infrastructure.
We intend to deliver co-living accommodation on the site, specifically designed to meet the growing need for flexible housing options for essential workers and temporary professionals, such as locum doctors, resident medical staff, and allied health professionals. These groups play a vital role in the region’s healthcare system, yet face difficulty finding appropriate, short-term housing near their places of work.
Our ability to progress this development is currently restricted by the lack of wastewater infrastructure and outdated RU1 Primary Production zoning, which was acknowledged as inappropriate for this area as far back as the 2012 John Oxley Drive Structure Plan. Despite this, zoning remains unchanged, limiting the supply of worker accommodation and the capacity to respond to local service demands.
We note that 58 John Oxley Drive, our adjoining property, is owned by an organisation seeking to deliver a much-needed childcare facility—another essential community use that is currently held back for the same reasons.
The Thrumster Wastewater Scheme represents critical enabling infrastructure that would unlock the potential of these strategically located blocks to contribute to regional housing supply, workforce attraction and retention, and essential service delivery.
Given the pressing need for suitable housing and services, we strongly support approval of this SSI application and the timely delivery of the Thrumster Wastewater Scheme.
Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute. Please don’t hesitate to contact me for further information or clarification.
Yours sincerely,