Attachment 8 Racecourse Road Submission

37

Attachment 8: Submission to Planning Panels Victoria on the Racecourse Road land (23 May 2013),

16 pages (refer separate document)

1

Lawrence Seyers

Sunbury VIC 3429

23 May 2013

Strategic Planning Department

Hume City Council

PO Box 119

Dallas VIC 3047

[email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

SUBMISSION TO HUME PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT C164

Background

This is a submission regarding planning scheme amendment proposed to apply to 275 Racecourse

Road, Sunbury (known colloquially as the Racecourse Road land).

The amendment seeks to rezone the land from the Farming Zone Schedule 3 (FZ3) to a Residential 1

Zone (R1Z), Business 1 Zone (B1Z) (including a revised Schedule 1) and Public Park and Recreation

Zone (PPRZ). These zones broadly implement the proposed land uses from the Masterplan

completed by Hume City Council in February 2010.

The amendment proposes to apply a Development Plan Overlay over the land and introduce a new

Schedule 27 to the Development Plan Overlay.

The Racecourse Road land comprises of 50.44 hectares of undeveloped farming land and is bounded

to the south by conventional residential development, to the west and north by low density rural-

residential development and to the east by the Salesian farming property. It is served by higher

order Council arterial roads of Racecourse Road to the east and the centrally located connection to

Elizabeth Drive.

Summary of submission

1. That the Development Plan Overlay is inconsistent with the previously endorsed Hume City

Council MasterPlan, dated February 2010, and that unless it can be justified otherwise

through extensive investigations and studies, the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 27

(specifically Figure 1) be modified to accord to the previously endorsed Hume City Council

MasterPlan.

2. That the funds generated from the future development of the site be quarantined for the

betterment of Sunbury through the inclusion of a new component of Development Plan

Overlay Schedule 27 Requirement before a permit can be granted: The establishment of a

Building Sunburys Future Fund.

3. That the Development Plan Overlay be expanded to include the critically important Elizabeth

Drive extension from Racecourse Road to Lancefield Road, including a correction to the

existing Public Acquisition Overlay which applies to the adjacent Salesian landholding.

2

Public Interest

The Racecourse Road land has been the subject of a protracted public debate regarding the future

use of this strategic site in Sunbury.

In February 2010 Hume City Council endorsed the 275 Racecourse Road Sunbury MasterPlan

Report.1 Prior to this matter being considered by Council, information sessions were held and 350

people attended and provided either written or verbal feedback.2 Additionally, 160 Community

Feedback Forms were completed and returned and a joint letter containing 15 signatures and a

petition containing 579 signatures objecting to the development were received. 3 These were tabled

at a Council Meeting on 9 November 2009.

During the 2010 State Election campaign, Shadow Minister for Planning Matthew Guy MP gave a

commitment to Sunbury residents that he would review the sale of the site (see article below).

Sunbury Leader, 31 August 2010

Sunbury Telegraph, 5 October 2010

It has been reported that the Sunbury community will fight the Racecourse Road proposal to the

bitter end and at the time was supported by the Shadow Minister for Planning Matthew Guy MP

(see article above).

In May 2012 Hume City Council sought Authorisation from the Minister for Planning to proceed to

Exhibit the Planning Scheme Amendment.4 This is usually a straightforward procedural process and

provided within a short time period. In this case, the Minister did not provide Authorisation until 5

April 2013 almost 12 months later. The extended delay in providing initial approval under the

Planning and Environment Act highlights the sensitivity of this plan to the Minister for Planning,

Hume City Council and the Sunbury community.

1 Reports, Hume City Council Ordinary Council Meeting, 27 September 2010, p. 36.

2 Reports, Hume City Council Ordinary Council Meeting, 22 February 2010, p. 51.


4 Reports, Hume City Council Ordinary Council Meeting, 14 May 2012, p. 41.

3

History

Hume City Council inherited the Racecourse Road land from the Shire of Bulla. In May 1974, the

Shire of Bulla secured an option to purchase the site from Paynes Properties Pty Ltd, which at the

time was in liquidation. In 1976 the site was purchased by the Shire of Bulla for $391,250 with the

intention that it would become a future Town Centre of the Sunbury Satellite City.

This purchase took place at a time, not unlike today, when strategic plans were being drawn up for a

future Sunbury mega-city, where it was anticipated Sunbury would have a population of between

65,000-100,000 people (see map below). At the time it was considered that local government should

control the site likely to be the future Town Centre as occurred in the British New Towns.

1974 Sunbury Recommended Growth Area

5 and 2010 Sunbury Growth Area

6

Today, despite the Sunbury Urban Growth Boundary being expanded to include much of the area to

the north-east and east of the Racecourse Road land, and the population projections for Sunbury

being approximately 80,000 to 100,000, or higher, depending on the density of development over

the next 30 years,7 Hume City Council has stated that changes to the planning of Sunbury resulted

in this land no longer being required for this use and has remained vacant since. 8

The Racecourse Road Master Plan

The Development Plan Overlay proposed in Amendment C164 is inconsistent with the previously

endorsed Hume City Council MasterPlan, dated February 2010. The differences are not fully

explained in the Explanatory Report for the Amendment and whilst there are elements that remain

consistent, the relocation of the Neighbourhood Activity Centre, its increased commercial footprint,

the reduction in the open space and wetlands and the realignment of Elizabeth Drive are not

properly explained.

5 Recommendations for declaration of designated growth areas, Town and Country Planning Board, September

1974, p.3-2. 6 www.dpcd.vic.gov.au

7

http://www.hume.vic.gov.au/Business_Major_Projects/Major_Projects/Sunbury_Major_Projects/Sunbury_HI

GAP 8 Reports, Hume City Council Ordinary Council Meeting, 22 February 2010, p. 55.

Existing

urban area

of Sunbury

in 1974

4

Background reports and technical advice may explain the changes however these were not part of

the Amendment documents. It is submitted that given the public interest in this site and the

extensive community consultation involved, any variance to the previously approved MasterPlan

requires justification. In the absence of this, the Development Plan Overlay (specifically Figure 1)

should be modified to reflect the February 2010 MasterPlan (see below).

Extract from the Hume City Council MasterPlan Report, February 2010

Figure 1 from the proposed Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 27, May 2013

Investment of funds in Sunbury

I believe a significant underlying factor in the intense public interest in the Racecourse Road land is

the desire by Sunbury residents to have a say in how their community assets are used and if they are

deemed to be surplus, then how these funds will be distributed. Hume City Council has reiterated on

many occasions that any funds as a result of this development will be used for the benefit of the

entire Hume community. 9


5

This situation is unacceptable to many in the Sunbury community. One needs only look at the

passionate twenty year debate that surrounds Sunbury out of Hume to understand the desire of

the Sunbury community to be represented by a Sunbury Council and their unique identity

recognised (see case study, overleaf).

It is submitted that there are a number of significant investments that are required in Sunbury and

that the proceeds from the disposal of this asset need to be reinvested in the Sunbury community.

To this end, this submission proposes to modify the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 27 to

ensure that the funds generated from the future residential development of the Racecourse Road

land be quarantined for the betterment of Sunbury.

Proposed amendment to Schedule 27 (in red text)

Through the inclusion of a new requirement that must be met prior to any permit being granted, the

Development Plan Overlay Schedule 27 requires Hume City Council to invest the proceeds from the

sale in the Sunbury community on capital works projects that are identified through Precinct

Structure Plans in the Sunbury Urban Growth Boundary. It also increases the accountability and

transparency of the fund through a requirement of an annual report to the community.

It is submitted that one of the most significant Sunbury Growth Corridor Precinct Structure Plan

requirements will be the acquisition and construction of the Elizabeth Drive connection from

Racecourse Road to Lancefield Road. This connection is an expensive exercise and one that Council

cannot complete without a significant new funding source. The Racecourse Road land has a direct

nexus with this connection as it proposes to extend Elizabeth Drive to Racecourse Road and its

residents will place increased pressure on the two existing crossings of the Melbourne-Bendigo

railway line (Macedon St and Station St) and only one crossing of Jacksons Creek (Sunbury Rd).

It is considered appropriate that the proceeds from the sale of the Racecourse Road land be firstly

used to fund this connection and then secondly to fund other Sunbury Growth Area Precinct

Structure Plan projects that are unfunded through Development Contribution Plans.

This action mitigates one significant aspect to the significant community opposition to the sale of the

Racecourse Road land and provides an important legacy from the far sighted decision by the Shire of

Bulla to purchase this site from Paynes Properties in the 1970s.

SCHEDULE 27 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY

1.0 Requirement before a permit is granted

A permit may be granted for the use of land, to construct a building, to carry out works or to remove native vegetation before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority provided the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the use, building, works or native vegetation removal will not prejudice the future integrated use or development of the Land. Any permit granted must also be generally in accordance with the Figure 1 of this Schedule.

Prior to a permit being granted, Hume City Council must have established a Building Sunburys Future Fund which shall receive all funds generated from the sale of land at 275 Racecourse Road Sunbury and which shall be governed by a Charter that requires all proceeds to be spent in the Sunbury Urban Growth Boundary on Capital Works Projects identified through Precinct Structure Plans, with annual reports presented to the community on the expenditure from the fund.

6

Sunbury out of Hume: A case study

Local government amalgamations in December 1994 followed a short period of public consultation

by the Local Government Board. For the geographic area that is now occupied by Hume City Council,

the Local Government Boards Middle and Outer Melbourne: Interim Report (October 1994)

recommended part of the Shire of Bulla east of Deep Creek should become part of the proposed

Hume City Council, and the part of the Shire of Bulla west of Deep Creek should be considered as

part of the North-Central Victoria review.

At the time this recommendation was released, the Minister for Local Government had already

established the North-Central Victoria Review (August 1994) and it was unable to be included in

their Terms of Reference. As a result, the North Central Victoria Final Report noted:

Following the release of the North-Central Victoria Review: Interim Report, the Board received

over 1,200 form letters from Sunbury residents seeking inclusion of the township in the proposed

Macedon Ranges.10

Sunbury residents continue to resist the Hume City Council amalgamation as they consider that they

are unique; a distinct community of interest, unlike any other area of metropolitan Melbourne

where local boundaries are arbitrary as their populations are more fluid and less tied to specific

councils.

Sunbury has been repeatedly promised a separate municipality. In 1999 the Bracks Labor Opposition

promised it, then once elected, in 2000 it commissioned a Panel report. This Panel report was used

in the period 2001-2010 as the basis for the Bracks/Brumby Government to argue for no change. In

the 2006 State Election campaign the Liberal Party policy A Liberal Plan to Revitalise Local

Government stated:

In the City of Hume, a long campaign has sought to separate Sunbury from Hume City Council

due to major differences between the residents of Sunbury and Broadmeadows. The Liberal

Government will:

Appoint an independent panel to investigate and report within 12 months on potential

municipal restructure of Sunbury as a stand-alone Council;

Submit final recommendations, including costs of de-amalgamation, to residents to enable

informed decisions to be made before a plebiscite is conducted; and

If restructures are supported by residents, submit final recommendations of potential

municipal restructures to the State Government for implementing changes to the Local

Government Act to permit election of councillors in Sunbury at the November 2008

elections.11

In the 2010 Victorian Election campaign the Baillieu Coalition adopted the policy Sunbury out of

Hume: Your say guaranteed which sought to provide Sunbury residents with a vote on de-

amalgamation. In February 2013 the Minister for Local Government released the Stage 1 KPMG

report Hume City Councils Service Provision in Sunbury 2012. A Stage 2 KPMG Feasibility Study was

subsequently commissioned12 which will inform the plebiscite of residents on 25 October 2013.13

10

Local Government Board, North-Central Victoria Final Report, 1994, December, p.18. 11

Liberal Party, 2006 State Election policy A Liberal Plan to Revitalise Local Government. 12

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/news-and-events/news/hume-council-sets-high-level-of-

sunbury-services 13

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/6884-sunbury-out-of-hume-plebiscite-

set.html

7

Sunbury Arterial Road Network Planning

The Growth Areas Authoritys Growth Corridor Plans provide for significant new urban development

and the fringe growth areas are expected to accommodate close to half of Melbournes new housing

and much of the citys future supply of industrial land over the next thirty to forty years. These

regions will accommodate up to 422,000 new dwellings, 1.19 million new residents and 432,000 new

jobs (see below table).

2012 Urban Growth Boundary Population Projections

14

The Sunbury Growth Corridor Plan is a major shift in the planning of both the Sunbury and Diggers

Rest communities and all the new communities will feed off the existing Sunbury Township and

its existing east-west transport connections of two crossings of the Melbourne-Bendigo railway line

(Macedon St and Station St) and only one crossing of Jacksons Creek (Sunbury Rd).

Sunbury Existing Crossings and Barriers (highlighted constraints)

15

14

http://webadmin.gaa.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/Growth%20Corridor%20Plans%20ON%20SCREEN.pdf p.8. 15

http://www.gaa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sunbury-Growth-Corridor-Plan.pdf

Melbourne

-Bendigo

Railway

Line

Sunbury Road is the

only x-ing of Jacksons

Creek

Macedon St and Station

St are the only x-ing of

Melbourne-Bendigo

Railway Line

Jacksons

Creek

8

This lack of east-west transport connections and the strong and formidable north-south barriers of

Jacksons Creek and the Melbourne-Bendigo railway line places immense pressure on these crossings

and provides little redundancy in the event of an emergency or closure (it is noted that Sunbury has

two fire stations, one on each side of the Melbourne-Bendigo railway line). It is important to note

that Sunbury has a Town Centre based around Evans and OShanassy Streets which is located to the

east of the Melbourne-Bendigo railway line, whilst over 75% of Sunburys current urbanisation is to

the west of the Melbourne-Bendigo railway line including the Racecourse Road land.

Hume City Council has estimated the Sunbury Growth Corridor plan may result in a total population

in Sunbury/Diggers Rest of approximately 80,000 to 100,000, or higher, depending on the density of

development over the next 30 years.16

The Sunbury Growth Corridor Plan builds on the work of the Shire of Bulla and identifies two new

east-west connections as part of the urban growth requirements: one at Elizabeth Drive in the north

of Sunbury which connects to Lancefield Road and one to the south of Sunbury, a Southern Link

through the Sunbury South Precinct Structure Plan Area from Sunbury Road to Vineyard Road.

Sunbury Urban Growth Plan, June 2010 (two new proposed crossings highlighted)

17

Should the Elizabeth Drive connection from Racecourse Road to Lancefield Road not be constructed

(and the proposed Viaduct Way example points to this occurring, see case study later in this

submission) the Sunbury road network will be unable to accommodate the significant development

expected of it under the 2010 Sunbury Urban Growth Boundary extension.

16

http://www.hume.vic.gov.au/Business_Major_Projects/Major_Projects/Sunbury_Major_Projects/Sunbury_HI

GAP 17


Elizabeth

Drive

connection

Southern

Link

connection

9

This chronic problem is demonstrated by traffic modelling completed for the Growth Areas Authority

by Sinclair Knight Merz, and available online. 18 The model is based on the Department of Transports

Victorian Integrated Transport Model (VITM) and shows that for 2046 Sunbury can expect the

following traffic volumes using the four proposed crossings (two existing and two proposed):

Sunbury Road (at Jacksons Creek)

16,600 vpd Sunbury bound traffic

18,800 vpd Goonawarra bound traffic

35,400 vpd Total

Macedon St Bridge (at railway line)

16,700 vpd Riddell Rd bound traffic

18,100 vpd Sunbury Rd bound traffic

34,800 vpd Total

Station St (level x-ing at railway line)

4,800 vpd Gap Rd bound traffic

4,900 vpd Evans St bound traffic

9,700 vpd Total

Southern Link (at railway line)

7,900 vpd Vineyard Rd bound traffic


16,000 vpd Total

Elizabeth Drive (at Jacksons Creek)

6,400 vpd Racecourse Rd bound

6,800 vpd Lancefield Rd bound traffic

13,200 vpd Total

2046 traffic volumes on east-west road crossings (assuming construction of all roads)19

NB: vpd = vehicles per day

18

Northern Growth Corridor 2046 Transport Modelling Report, http://www.gaa.vic.gov.au/wp-

content/Assets/Files/Both%20Northern%20Corridor%20Strategic%20Transport%20Model%20wollert%20and

%20quarry%20hill.pdf 19

http://www.gaa.vic.gov.au/wp-


%20quarry%20hill.pdf p. 38.

10

Sunbury Growth Corridor 2046 Traffic Modelling (selected crossing points highlighted)

20

20

http://www.gaa.vic.gov.au/wp-


%20quarry%20hill.pdf p. 38.

Lan

cefie

ld R

oa

d

11

Assuming the Elizabeth Drive connection from Racecourse Road to Lancefield Road is not

constructed, Scenario 1 is provided below which absorbs the 2046 traffic volumes from Elizabeth

Drive connection onto Macedon Street crossing and Station Street crossing on a 50/50 split and the

full volume on Sunbury Road at Jacksons Creek.

Sunbury Road (at Jacksons Creek) Capacity Required



48,600 vpd Total 6 lane capacity (two currently)

Macedon St Bridge (at railway line) Capacity Required



41,400 vpd Total 6 lane capacity (four currently)

Station St (level x-ing at railway line) Capacity Required




Southern Link (at railway line) Capacity Required

7,900 vpd Vineyard Rd bound traffic


16,000 vpd Total 2 lane capacity (none currently)

Scenario 1: Sunbury traffic volumes and road capacity by 2046 if Elizabeth Drive is not constructed

Assuming the Elizabeth Drive and Southern Link are not be constructed the situation is even more

problematic. Scenario 2 is provided below which absorbs the 2046 traffic volumes from Elizabeth

Drive connection and Southern Link onto Macedon Street crossing and Station Street crossing on a

50/50 split and the full volume on Sunbury Road at Jacksons Creek.

Sunbury Road (at Jacksons Creek) Capacity Required




Macedon St Bridge (at railway line) Capacity Required




Station St (level x-ing at railway line) Capacity Required




Scenario 2: Sunbury traffic volumes and road capacity by 2046 if Elizabeth Drive and Southern Link

are not constructed

12

Based on these two scenarios, Sunbury will be gridlocked as the road capacity of Macedon Street

and Sunbury Road will be chronically congested and over capacity. The maximum arterial road

network capacity is measured by a standard definition, shown below.

Road Network Capacity

Based on Scenario 1 with no Elizabeth Drive connection to Lancefield Road, but construction of

Southern Link, the following infrastructure will be required, based on the 2046 traffic volumes:

Station Street will be able to accommodate 16,300 vpd within the existing four lane cross

section (although depending on the frequency of Metro trains this may affect the capacity);

Macedon Street will have to accommodate 41,400 vpd, requiring a six lane crossing

(currently a four lane crossing);

Sunbury Road crossing of Jacksons Creek will have to accommodate 48,600 vpd, requiring a

six lane crossing (currently a two lane crossing); and

Southern Link will need to be constructed to accommodate 16,000 vpd, requiring a two lane

cross section.

Based on Scenario 2 with no Elizabeth Drive connection to Lancefield Road, and no Southern Link

connection (the no change scenario), the following infrastructure will be required, based on the

2046 traffic volumes:

Station Street will be able to accommodate 19,500 vpd within the existing four lane cross

section (although depending on the frequency of Metro trains this may affect the capacity);

Macedon Street will have to accommodate 49,350 vpd, requiring a six lane crossing

(currently a four lane crossing); and

Sunbury Road crossing of Jacksons Creek will have to accommodate 64,600 vpd, requiring an

eight lane crossing (currently a two lane crossing).

These two scenarios present the danger that without the construction of the Elizabeth Drive

connection to Lancefield Road and the Southern Link connection from Vineyard Road through to

Sunbury Road, the Sunbury road network will be unable to accommodate the significant

development expected of it under the 2010 Sunbury Urban Growth Boundary extension. This will

either require a reassessment of the extent of development (lower densities or less development

land) or significant new funding for these significant infrastructure items.

For this reason, Hume City Council will need to find the tens of millions of dollars to construct these

high order collector roads through new revenue sources. The Racecourse Road land has an

appropriate nexus with the Elizabeth Drive connection and this submission considers the

establishment of a Building Sunburys Future infrastructure fund to leave a lasting legacy is an

appropriate mechanism to fund this required infrastructure.

For the Racecourse Road land to fit properly as an extension of the Sunbury urban community,

certain off-site shared works will also need to be constructed. The nexus principle is that a use or

development is deemed to have a nexus with a particular infrastructure item if the occupants of, or

visitors to, the site in question is likely to make use of the infrastructure in question.

2 lane road maximum 18,000 vpd



13

Viaduct Way: A case study

Provision for crossing at Viaduct Way was introduced via Amendment L27 to the Shire of Bulla

Planning Scheme in December 1990 when a Public Acquisition Overlay was established from

Vineyard Road to the existing railway viaduct. This road connection was the included in the Sunbury

Strategy Plan 1993.

In the 1995 the Urban Land Authority (which became VicUrban, now Places Victoria) took control of

the state government owned Caloola site and renamed it Jacksons Hill. Following extensive public

consultation and discussion the Jacksons Hill Local Structure Plan (LSP) was adopted by Hume City

Council in 1995. The LSP was later amended in 2001, again following a public exhibition process. The

Jacksons Hill LSP requires Places Victoria to design and construct this road within 2 years of reaching

750 built and occupied dwellings at Jacksons Hill, subject to Hume City Council funding and

organising the necessary land acquisition (land between the railway line and Vineyard Road).

At March 2010, all of the

design documentation had

been completed and VicUrban

had obtained approvals from

VicTrack, Melbourne Water,

Telstra, GasNet Australia (all of

whom have key assets in this

location), VicRoads and the

Wurundjeri Tribe Land and

Compensation Cultural

Heritage Council.

Artists Impression of Viaduct Way21

Since March 2010, Hume City Council officers have put the brakes on this important connection

and instead have focused their attention on the proposed Southern Link. This is despite the Viaduct

Way crossing being fully documented, approved and ready to commence construction. Despite

repeated Council Resolutions for a public Council briefing (24 October 2011 OGI291 and 13 February

2012 OGI298), Hume City Council officers have failed to provide a report to a public Council meeting

on this important matter.

As at May 2013 there have been 1,158 lots released, of which only 114 are vacant (assuming all the

houses are occupied), meaning 1,044 dwellings have been constructed. Well over the 750 dwelling

trigger for the construction of the Viaduct Way.

This case study demonstrates that Hume City Council has failed the residents of Jacksons Hill and has

let this important railway crossing drift since at least March 2010.

It also highlights the need for the Elizabeth Drive connection through to Lancefield Road to be

preserved and constructed through planning scheme provisions with dedicated funding that is not

captured by Hume City Councils budgeting process which for Viaduct Way is a legacy of deny, delay

and defer much to the frustration of Jacksons Hill residents.

21

Heritage Victoria Submission, VicUrban, March 2010.

14

The Elizabeth Drive Missing Link

The Shire of Bulla preserved the Elizabeth Drive connection from Racecourse Road to Lancefield

Road. This reservation was inserted into the Hume Planning Scheme (date unknown) and remains as

a Public Acquisition Overlay, see below. It is noted that in the early 2000s Hume City Council

subdivided the Balbethan Drive connection which made the connection through to Lancefield Road

difficult to achieve.

Overlay of the December 2011 Masterplan and Hume Planning Scheme Map No. 2 PAO note the

mismatched alignment of Elizabeth Drive connection

Subsequently, the Sunbury Growth Corridor Plan 2010 has identified this connection along a new

alignment that utilises the Raes Road cross section (see below). This road would be a two lane

crossing of the Jacksons Creek and Melbourne-Bendigo railway line.

As part of this Amendment for the Racecourse Road land, Hume City Council should also be doing

the strategic planning required to correct this future road connection alignment in the Planning

Scheme. This would be achieved by deletion of the existing Public Acquisition Overlay alignment and

replacement with a new Public Acquisition Overlay in the correct alignment.

This alignment needs to utilise the natural contours of the Jacksons Creek escarpment and should be

secured as orderly planning for Sunbury. Given Sunbury is on a tipping point to becoming home to

80,000-100,000 residents this planning work is essential for the proper and orderly planning of the

Sunbury community.

Proposed Alignment that

uses the contours

Balbethan Drive

connection subdivided

early 2000s

15

Elizabeth Drive Connection, Sunbury Growth Corridor Plan, June 2012

22

Note the Sunbury North-East Growth Area highlighted and its reliance on this crossing (only other

crossing of Jacksons Creek is the two lane Sunbury Road)

22


16

The Elizabeth Drive Connection (alignment that maximises the natural escarpment contours)

Perspective of the Elizabeth Drive Connection

(alignment that maximises the natural escarpment contours)

Conclusion

I feel that this submission makes a number of valid points that need to be addressed through this

Planning Scheme Amendment and I look forward to contributing to the Planning Panel deliberations

for this strategic development and to making a difference in the community in which I live.

Regards

Lawrence Seyers

Attachment 8 Racecourse Road Submission

Documents

Transcript of Attachment 8 Racecourse Road Submission