in the Sunbury South area and the submission by Council in response to exhibition of the Amendments. Mr McNeill identifies that differs from many greenfields growth areas in ‘Sunbury metropolitan Melbourne in that there is established infrastructure in reasonable proximity. The VPA agrees this is a distinctive feature of both PSPs. Mr McNeill considers the submission by Council in response to exhibition of the Amendments and refers to a concern that community infrastructure in the Sunbury PSP will be delayed as preference is given to providing the new southern crossing of Jacksons Creek. The VPA has provided further information to Council in relation to delivery of this crossing and is satisfied the standard levy will result in sufficient funds for all apportioned projects. Mr McNeill further states that there is suggestion’ that development of the PSP ‘some areas be capped, pending the provision of the Bulla Bypass’. Mr McNeill ‘should recommends caution in relation to this suggestion. The VPA does not expect and would not support such a cap. Applied residential zones Sunbury South PSP (C207) Submissions 57 (Hume City Council); 71 (Villawood – Properties); 75 (Capitol Property Group); 83 (T Dance) Lancefield Road PSP (C208) Submissions 54 (Hume City Council); 60 (potential – developers of 280 Lancefield Road); 71 (Villawood Properties); 77 (M Gray); 84 (T Dance) Applied zones The Amendments proposed to introduce two Schedules to the Growth Zone (UGZ): Schedule 9 Sunbury South Precinct Structure Plan; and – Schedule 10 Lancefield Road Precinct Structure Plan. – Both Schedules include 1: Applied zone provisions’ at Clause 2.2. These ‘Table propose the application of two residential zones as follows: Figure 2: extract 1 (Applied zone provisions) in proposed Schedules 9 and 10 to the UGZ
in the Sunbury South area and the submission by Council in response to exhibition of the Amendments. Mr McNeill identifies that ‘Sunbury differs from many greenfields growth areas in metropolitan Melbourne in that there is established infrastructure in reasonable proximity. The VPA agrees this is a distinctive feature of both PSPs. Mr McNeill considers the submission by Council in response to exhibition of the Amendments and refers to a concern that community infrastructure in the Sunbury PSP will be delayed as preference is given to providing the new southern crossing of Jacksons Creek. The VPA has provided further information to Council in relation to delivery of this crossing and is satisfied the standard levy will result in sufficient funds for all apportioned projects. Mr McNeill further states that there is ‘some suggestion’ that development of the PSP areas ‘should be capped, pending the provision of the Bulla Bypass’. Mr McNeill recommends caution in relation to this suggestion. The VPA does not expect and would not support such a cap. Applied residential zones Sunbury South PSP (C207) – Submissions 57 (Hume City Council); 71 (Villawood Properties); 75 (Capitol Property Group); 83 (T Dance) Lancefield Road PSP (C208) – Submissions 54 (Hume City Council); 60 (potential developers of 280 Lancefield Road); 71 (Villawood Properties); 77 (M Gray); 84 (T Dance) Applied zones The Amendments proposed to introduce two Schedules to the Growth Zone (UGZ): Schedule 9 – Sunbury South Precinct Structure Plan; and Schedule 10 – Lancefield Road Precinct Structure Plan. Both Schedules include ‘Table 1: Applied zone provisions’ at Clause 2.2. These propose the application of two residential zones as follows: Figure 2: extract 1 (Applied zone provisions) in proposed Schedules 9 and 10 to the UGZ