Well I guess so - maybe it was just an excuse instead of an explanation. I still can't see the line being reopened any time soon, but who knows - the money might materialise from somewhere.

And no - I don't want to talk trains, maybe I will just introduce you to my dad, and then run quickly away.

Suzzana...I agree i wont have to look left and right any day soon ! But of all the 'projected" extensions to lines..this would be the one that would probably be able to done the quickest..as its actually there ( all but the station )

Years have a habit of slipping by quickly..but I wouldnt be at all suprised to see it come back to life inside of 4-5.

Casey would be very keen to see the line come back..especially in Sparks form.. the Council is very pro PT ...even if some of its ideas are a little left of field ( any field !! lol )

The fact that Melbourne is coming.. the reality of the continual development of the playing fileds and other Community accessible assets drives the transport and access part of the equation.

As an observer of these things I will be very interested to see how this "card" is played out next voting circus !!

Question.... Do all MFC supporters live in inner Melb. the the simple answer is no. Its about time some supporters releasied you dont fall off the end of the earth when you go east of glen waveley.

I think that the idea of Casey is great, for too long as a club we havnt been interested in ANYTHING outside the cbd. We dont have a base either on or off the field, here is the chance to bag an area full of little people AND THAT AREA CONTINUES TO GROW! The phyisical center of Melb is advancing about half a k a year down along Dandy road , and the last mentioned in the paper it had just passed chaddy.

Casey area will continue to expand and like all new areas lack facilities for the young, here is our chance to bag them while they are young.

Shame on you Suzanna sicking our dad on belzebub59 concerning trains, him an old steam engine man

The City of Casey has just issued its latest Planning & Development Policy and Project Update (September 2008) and included in the items covered are:-

RECREATION AND LEISURE PROJECTS

Melbourne Football Club

Council's resolution of 5 August 2008 to condition¬ally agree to execute an agreement with the Mel¬bourne Football Club to base its football opera¬tions at Casey Fields in Cranbourne East until 2010 remains unchanged.

Beyond 2010, Melbourne Football Club would have an ongoing presence in Casey delivering a community program in excess of $600,000 value each year. This represents one of the more sig¬nificant community programs run by an AFL club.

Cranbourne Aquatic and Leisure Centre

Works on Casey's $37 million Cranbourne Aquatic & Leisure Centre are progressing and remain on schedule for a mid-2009 opening.

The 50 m swimming pool and surrounding deck are complete and wall tiling has commenced. In the leisure water area, the learn to swim pool and beach entry to the leisure water pool are com¬plete, and wall form work is underway for the whirl pool and deep end of the leisure pool. Steel work for the creche, administration area and upper floor gym is complete and roofing has commenced. The curved masonry walls in the ground floor pool administration area and change room is well un¬derway. The internal fit-out of the upper floor gym has commenced, including lining of the walls and services. The car park is also nearing completion.

... and ...

STRATEGIC PROJECTS

Casey Transport Strategy

Casey has adopted a Transport Strategy to iden¬tify and address short to medium-term transport issues being faced by the municipality as a growth area.

As the municipality develops, Casey has ac¬knowledged that the emphasis will change from providing a basic level of mobility for all residents to encouraging people to use more sustainable transport modes. The bulk of the actions identi¬fied are directed towards gaining some degree of mobility for residents to allow them access to goods and services.

The Strategy identifies key issues, objectives and actions for a number of 'transport themes' including: the arterial and local road networks; public transport and non-motorised networks; parking management; freight movement; road safety; and community transport.

Well Public Transport and Community transport is on the agenda. Nothing specific about a new railway station or line extension but that could come under public transport networks I guess, but nevertheless it is on the agenda for Strategic Projects.

Have no fear nor illusion...Casey is very transport focused. Even putting a fanciful Monorail form Cranbourne to Fountain Gate aside ( Homer theres a drivers job waiting !! ) the Council is very proactive in its attempts and vision to get 'things' moving.. and by things I mean , cars, people, and trains !!

Last election the Incumbents were pretty sure of their position and so didnt do much at all about Transport.. I mean its not like its anything they know about..not their filed of expertise..but then what is !! ( arguably other lot arent much better) Next time we all go to bat on this Transport is much more the buz subject. This will be a politcal footy without doubt. Any extension or reactivation that can be done without Herculean efforts will be very attractive to sweeten the various local pies. Again I say..the easiest of all these is to Casey Fileds..even beyond . For any interested a very lateral submission to the recent Eddington public inquiry profered the idea of a connecting line utilising the Cranbourne extension to Clyde and then heading East to link up around the old Langwarrin site forming a outer ring to Frankston. Quite visionary I thought.

Highly unlikely unfortunately but interesting. What is very much a realistictically achieved outcome is indeed to extend to Casey Fields.

Rail is very much a Green alternative these days and back in favour.

For any interested a very lateral submission to the recent Eddington public inquiry profered the idea of a connecting line utilising the Cranbourne extension to Clyde and then heading East to link up around the old Langwarrin site forming a outer ring to Frankston. Quite visionary I thought.

I'm very interested in that submission.

This is the link to the index page of the various 2,147 submissions:

http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/DOI/Intern...5E?OpenDocument

Could you identify the submission number of the submission you refer to so I can have a squizz.

I'm very interested in that submission.

This is the link to the index page of the various 2,147 submissions:

http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/DOI/Intern...5E?OpenDocument

Could you identify the submission number of the submission you refer to so I can have a squizz.

Eddington Report - Public Submissions _ Mr Bruce Race

you'll need to read through it a bit....about page 5

Bruce Race Submission

enjoy the read

Hope Casey Fields hasn't been built on/near a landfill site...

Hope Casey Fields hasn't been built on/near a landfill site...

hehe

i was wondering how long it would take someone to wonder about this

Hope Casey Fields hasn't been built on/near a landfill site...

If you are really interested, all you have to do is look at google earth/maps, or whereis.com.au - don't even have to get out of your chair to satisfy your curiosity.

I am very interested Suzanna...you forgot street view on Google..... and to satisfy that curiosity even further I've been to Casey Fields 4 times so I have a good idea of what it is like ...and as I've said before...it's a great facility in a crap location...hence the need to offer inducements for an AFL club to have a base there...

Casey Council is in for some difficult times over this landfill saga...possible class actions from irate residents....

Either Casey Council or VCAT has a lot of explaining to do...but some organisation is going to be up for a huge amount of money in compensation

VCAT overuled..its liable.. Casey warned VCAT !!

yep....just seems odd that Slater and Gordon are talking about a class action against the council.....

For the residents sake I hope ithat VCAT are found responsible and that the Government has to fork out the money...and that's for Melbournes sake as well....cos if the council is found to be responsible in any shape or form then that will have serious ramifications for funding issues within the City of Casey...

I cant see any point going Casey..Its all care no repsosibility for them. The minute VCAT trumped them they took on the mantle of repsonsibility!! Id be suing the Gov..VCAT is their lackey after all !!

I've been to Casey Fields 4 times so I have a good idea of what it is like ...and as I've said before...it's a great facility in a crap location...

If it's a crap location, where do you believe Casey Council should have built Casey Fields?

Casey Council is in for some difficult times over this landfill saga...possible class actions from irate residents....

There were two issues in the one appeal - proximity to the landfill and tree removal matters. Try reading the VCAT decisions.

This is an explanation from the Council regarding the two decisions:

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/stevensonsroad....asp?Item=13561

This is the first decision (VCAT overturned the Council decision on landfill issues in May 2004):

http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE15...ge_may_2004.pdf

This is the second decision (consent order on vegetation removal issues in September 2004):

http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE15..._v_casey_cc.pdf

It is really quite straightforward, but there is deliberate misinformation as people with agendas try to implicate others while other parties try to avoid blame.

While I say it is straightforward, there are some confusions created by a bit of ambiguity in the second decision as well as some missing words.

If it's a crap location, where do you believe Casey Council should have built Casey Fields?

Perhaps somewhere closer to a train station.....have a look where it's been built....on the outskirts of Cranbourne on the Berwick Cranbourne road....the complex is nearly 4 kilometres from Cranbourne station...if that's good planning we'll disagree....as with many new estates around Melbourne, there is little infrastructure in regards to public transport...Cranbourne is just another example...

Perhaps somewhere closer to a train station.....have a look where it's been built....on the outskirts of Cranbourne on the Berwick Cranbourne road....the complex is nearly 4 kilometres from Cranbourne station...if that's good planning we'll disagree....as with many new estates around Melbourne, there is little infrastructure in regards to public transport...Cranbourne is just another example...

Firstly, where do you think the Council would be able to buy, at a reasonable price, 70 ha (170 acres) of land?

The reality is that recreation facilities like Casey Fields could not be established in the vicnity of existing railway stations for two reasons:

1/ most land near existing railway stations is already developed and there would simply not be enough clear land available

2/ land in more established areas costs a lot more per hectare to buy (to the extent that a large parcel of land like Casey Fields would be unaffordable).

Secondly, good planning requires a bit of vision.

There is likely to be a future station at Cranbourne East when the line is re-opened. The road network will improve as development occurs. Casey Fields will be an open space jewell in the urban environment of Cranbourne East.

While Casey Fields looks like it is out in the sticks now, come back in 10 years time - the transformation of the area will have been dramatic.

Perhaps somewhere closer to a train station.....

It is..just hasnt been built yet !!!!

I cant see any point going Casey..Its all care no repsosibility for them. The minute VCAT trumped them they took on the mantle of repsonsibility!! Id be suing the Gov..VCAT is their lackey after all !!

While I would like 'someone else' to take responsibility for this, unfortunately I feel it is going to be our (residents of Casey) responsibility. We own the offending site, we are responsible for 'things' that escape from it (such as gas, liquids etc...) It's going to cost big bikkies to rectify this problem ie: stop the 'leaks'. It still doesn't stop me getting angry at greedy developers who squeeze houses into every possible corner, sell them and run away laughing. I bet the sales brochures were full of pretty pictures with green trees and smiling families. I'm sure there were no pictures of exploding houses. Having dealt with real estate agents from the past, I know how good they are at 'forgetting' to tell you things, and telling downright lies. (Speaking from personal experience only of course, I really don't know EXACTLY what these people were or weren't told).

Interesting to note that at all the meetings held so far, everyone has been in attendance (Council, EPA, CFA) except VCAT and Peet (the developer). Cowards.

However, Casey Fields is a fair distance from Brookland Greens, so it's really not an issue for the Dees. I just wish they would hurry up and sign on the dotted line before any other problems come up.

Roll on October!

As far as Brooklands goes the residents ( new owners ) should never have been allowed to become such.

A very simple basis ( in law) for much that is sold is whether " the goods are fit for the purpose intended" In this case they obviously werent. There will no doubt be , as aleady started, a bun fight as to who's holding the hot potato. Whilst being very much stuffed around I dont think the 'residents' will be too badly off in the long run. Its going to be time that is the annoying factor. Wouldnt trade places though.

This really wont affect the Dees/Casey project.

Further Casey Council - Methane Gas discussion: -

http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?showtopic=11803

Hope the deal with council has been signed

Methane gas crisis cash bid lost by councillor

:September 17, 2008 12:00am

A COUNCILLOR'S bid to have $1.25 million redirected from a Melbourne Football Club deal to residents hit by the Cranbourne methane crisis has failed.

This year's AFL wooden spooner had a deal with the Casey Council to relocate to the Casey fields this summer.

But Cr Kevin Bradford last night asked for the $1.25 million sports field improvement fund, which is needed to sign a $500,000 deal with the Demons, be redirected to help residents with the gas crisis.

Cr Bradford's motion was defeated, bringing boos and abuse from the packed gallery, but council voted to defer rates for Brookland Greens estate residents.

Last week residents in the estate were told to flee their homes because dangerous levels of methane gas was oozing from a neighbouring landfill.

Since then 29 families evacuated and the State Government announced emergency funding to help relocation.

Families who have chosen to move back into the estate may be relying on methane monitors that may not work.

At least one monitor stopped working after registering dangerously high levels of gas in a family home, hours after its owners moved back in.

Che Oakley, his wife Kym and their three children moved back into their Cherry Hill Drive home on Saturday when the monitor they'd been given started beeping wildly.

"We rang the number only to find it was an automated council service," Mr Oakley said.

"When I finally got through to the emergency centre the woman who answered didn't even know what Brookland Greens was."

Mr Oakley said a technician later said the monitor was faulty. The family lives 150m away from the landfill site.

The CFA said no readings of methane in homes had been detected in the last 48 hours.

The state's Ombudsman will immediately investigate the estate's methane problem.

Cr Bradford said at the meeting last night the council's first responsibility was to homeless residents, not to an AFL club.

His motion was defeated 5-4 but another motion to give residents rate relief for one year was carried.

Deputy Mayor Colin Butler chaired the meeting after Mayor Janet Halsall failed to front the angry crowd. Cr Halsall also failed to attend a public meeting last week.

- Matt Johnston, Ian Royall and Geraldine Mitchell

Since the councils budget is now under pressure by giving rate relief and possible legal action the $1.25m might be all that the sports field gets

Keep in mind..the actuality of fault.Residents are petitioning the Council..and Im not too sure why !! As I understand it they arent at fault..quite the converse..they warned people and exercised their duty of care. VCAT seem the culprits...and The ccouncil will on -bill any out of pocket I should imagine to the State Gov..This might affect the Council's cash flow..but not its intended spending

St Kilda Football Club has abandoned its plans to relocate their training base to Frankston Oval and will develop Belvedere Oval in Seaford as its new training facility. In today's Herald Sun this is reported as follows:

St Kilda will effectively have a blank canvas with which to work at Belvedere Park, with more than $11 million to be pumped in to the site.

An oval built to MCG configurations, an indoor sports stadium, a pool and gym will be included in the development, which will be funded by the State Government, local council, the AFL and the Saints. The club hopes the new facilities, most of which will be open to the public, will be operational by the start of the 2010 season.

The Herald Sun has learnt that after months of negotiations, Frankston City Council on Monday night decided to approve the Belvedere Park option. St Kilda announced in May last year it would be leaving Moorabbin, its home of 43 years, after lengthy discussions with Kingston Council broke down irreparably....

...It is understood Frankston Council has committed about $3.8 million to the Belvedere Park project.

It is understood that of the total project cost ($11 million) the State Government will contribute $3.45 million and the Saints $800k in addition to the Council's contribution of $3.8 million.

Contrast this with the Casey project: Council's $1.25 million + State Government $350k + MFC $500k = $2.1 million.

I wonder how the "Community obligations" entered into by the Saints in return for Council's financial support for their project compare with the obligations of the MFC for less than one-third the money?

Are we being dudded here? Have Connolly and the Board sold us short?