Skip to the record
Noosa's #1 Council Tracker.

Council archive · source document

PM Submission - Tom Whitaker - MCU25/0118

of 3

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

                 From:                     "Tom Whitaker" <[email protected]>
                 Sent:                     Sun, 23 Nov 2025 21:02:24 +1000
                 To:                       "Mailbox Council Mail" <[email protected]>
                 Subject:                  Submission for 64 lake MacDonald drive



                     You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

                 CAUTION: This email originated outside of Council. Do not open links or attachments
                 if the email is unexpected or unusual.

                 64 Lake MacDonald Drive has a number of significant issues that pose risks
                 and future safeguarding concerns for nearby residents and families, including
                 our own.
                 From the very beginning of this project, the process has felt like smoke and
                 mirrors from Council. Although the phrase “community consultation” is
                 constantly being used, it is very clear that this is merely a box-ticking
                 exercise rather than a genuine effort to engage with or provide any
                 meaningful service to the residents who actually pay the rates in this town.
                 Council’s website page for the development includes a subsection titled
                 Community Consultation, which states that a “letter” was sent to residents in
                 July 2022. Almost none of the residents received this letter. Even Glen
                 Conforti himself said, “It may have been an email,” yet Council still insists
                 that this counted as sufficient consultation.
                 After the meeting with residents—when councillors (4 vs 3) voted to proceed
                 with the development—residents were told that Lots 2 and 3 would be
                 subject to further community consultation. However, Frank Wilkie has since
                 stated publicly on radio that an additional 60 homes will be going on the lot,
                 or at least potentially. Is it any wonder why trust in local government has
                 dwindled?
                 Prior to the clearing of the land, residents expressed serious concerns about
                 potentially harmful dust and stormwater runoff during the remediation
                 process. How many times have councillors actually visited the lot or spoken
                 to residents to check how things are going? I have personally had one visitor
                 to my house who said she can literally taste the dust on windy days—and this
                 is evident from the works and how the dust (contaminated with asbestos) is
                 being handled. As someone who works in the construction industry, I was



Document Set ID: 24329284
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/11/2025
Full text of the other 2 pages

Page 2

                 shocked at how Council claimed the land would be remediated safely when I
                 know from personal experience that this is not completely possible.
                 Kim Rawlings (recorded) stated during an on-site meeting with the consultant
                 that Council would take any steps, no matter the cost, to keep residents safe.
                 However, when one resident asked to have the clearly visible dust on her
                 pool cover tested, she was told, “Sorry, it’s not in the budget.”
                 Since remediation began, there have been a number of moderate wet-weather
                 events—not unusual for this area—that have had significant effects on the
                 street. Contaminated dirt has spilled onto Dianella Court multiple times and,
                 when this occurs on weekends, it is left until Monday to be cleaned up. How
                 do the so-called biosphere climate activists on Council (such as Brian
                 Stockwell and Tom Wegner) consider this acceptable, especially given how
                 silent they have been throughout this entire process?
                 Being in construction, it is easy to see the potential harms of poor runoff
                 management—something Council itself acknowledges by employing
                 numerous plumbing inspectors. Yet when these questions were raised, I was
                 made to feel foolish and told to “trust the process.” The runoff at the back of
                 my property has increased dramatically since the removal of the tree canopy,
                 and I am expected to simply watch my property erode over the next decade.
                 The clustering of this many units, all of which are social or commission
                 housing, poses a substantial threat to the safety and wellbeing of my family
                 and our surrounding neighbours. Given that Frank Wilkie has already stated
                 publicly that Lots 2 and 3 will also be of the same nature and similarly dense,
                 where is the safety net for my family in terms of increased risk of crime and
                 general nuisance? It is well established that these types of developments often
                 bring additional challenges, and in this case, they put my family’s wellbeing
                 at risk—a path I strongly urge Council not to take.
                 I suggest councillors remember that they hold their positions because
                 residents like myself vote for them—and can just as easily vote them out.
                 Both Council staff and councillors are supposed to serve the wants and needs
                 of local ratepayers, yet throughout this entire process, it is clear that some
                 individuals are more focused on appeasing those they perceive as above them
                 rather than those who actually pay their wages.




Document Set ID: 24329284
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/11/2025

Page 3

                 This development has been a travesty from start to present and will have
                 overwhelmingly negative impacts on the town of Cooroy and the shire as a
                 whole.


                 Yours


                 Tom Whitaker

                 Sent from my iPhone




Document Set ID: 24329284
Version: 1, Version Date: 24/11/2025

Used in these records

About this file

File size
125 KB (small file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

PM Submission - Tom Whitaker - MCU25_0118.pdf · 125 KB (small file)

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.