August 26, 2010

Glen Eira and Planning: Always the Odd Man Out

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

This post asks the simple question – why is Glen Eira Council always the ‘odd man out’? What benefits does the community derive from this idiosyncratic approach to planning? We proffer the following information so that residents can compare and answer the above:

  Glen Eira Bayside Kingston Monash Stonnington Port Phillip
Structure Plans NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development Levy Was 0.25%; now ZILCH Will introduce in 2011   3 lots -2%4 lots -3%

5 lots -4%

6 or more lots – 5%

 2 lots – none specified3 lots – 2%

4 lots – 3%

5 lots – 4%

6 or more lots – 5%

 5%
Height limits No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 

August 25, 2010

Planning: Reprobate’s View

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[3] Comments 

C60 is one element (albeit a big one) of Council’s desire for
development in “strategic” parts of the municipality. For reasons
that have not been made public, some Council Officers have been
pushing very hard for Glen Eira to be seen to be leading all other
municipalities in encouraging development, provided its in the areas
they nominate.

The expiry of Development Contributions Overlays has meant that in
Glen Eira no contributions are sought from developers to contribute
to the cost of infrastructure (and public subsidy) needed to
underwrite their profits. The scale of the shortfall is staggering,
based on academic research, but is the natural consequence of
encouraging development at a rate faster than there is the
political will to fund infrastructure. The costs for processing
Applications for Planning Permits for large developments far
exceed the fees paid by applicant. The community is subsidizing
them in multiple ways. They really should be nicer to us on this
ground alone.

Planning law (the Planning And Environment Act for example) is
pathetically weak. Putatively Council should abide by it (insist
developments have a Planning Permit where one is required for
example), but Council is not legally obliged to do as its Planning
Scheme says. Anything that might restrict development can be
categorized as a “guideline” and is not binding.

In my opinion there should be a periodic audit of the Planning
Scheme by somebody independent of Council. The recent publication
of Council’s own Review of the local components of the Planning
Scheme show why when its examined critically.

I don’t believe Council has the skills to manage large-scale
development, and under the circumstances, yes, it is extremely
likely there will be problems for which no solutions are offered,
due to the need for the developer to maximize their profit. As
one developer said to me, “Its all about money”.

That pursuit of money is why we see so few 3-bedroom apartments,
why most of the units constructed are rented to young people without
families, why once-vibrant shopping centres are losing their range
of services (with food outlets almost universally replacing other
activities), why open space is considered not necessary in Urban
Villages, why statistics around demographics and transport patterns
are not sought or required during the planning process, why any
standards that might restrict development are so casually waived.

But God help you should you try to subdive your block to build a
second house at the back in a Minimal Change Area. Expect the full
wrath of Council.

We have at least 2 more years of the current regime. While we have
no direct say in development in *our* municipality, we can at least
maintain some political pressure on the nefarious parties involved.
Council has lots of policies, including unofficial policies about
which policies they have no intention of complying with. I hesitate
to say the community deserves better, because significant chunks of
the community have remained silent, perhaps grateful that Council
intends to protect their amenity at the expense of somebody else.

I got involved in Town Planning matters in Glen Eira because I saw
things happening to other people that I wouldn’t want happen to me.
Council’s enthusiasm for development has resulted in Council losing
an ethical dimension to their decision-making, and a similar
malaise has affected VCAT’s Planning and Environment List and the
Minister against Planning’s Department. “Power tends to corrupt
and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Its time to curb their
power.

 

August 23, 2010

Caulfield Racecourse: Occam Razor’s Viewpoint

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[6] Comments 

The following comment was received from one of our readers. We believe it deserves to be put up as a separate post. To read the other comments on the Racecourse/East Caulfield Village, follow this link – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/rage-at-racecourse/#comments

PLEASE NOTE: If you would like to see your comments as a post, then please let us know. Glen Eira Debates welcomes the opportunity to publicise residents’ views and seeks to engender genuine debate on important issues.

The Planning Panel Report on Amendment C60 dealing with rezoning issue for Caulfield Village will be voted on shortly by the Glen Eira Council. There is yet to be the Officer’s Report on the Planning Panel Recommendations. However, it is a forgone conclusion that Officers will recommend to accept it They will argue that Council has no choice but to follow State Government’s legislative planning arrangements and Planning Panel suggestions. Also, they cannot reject an Amendment approved by the Council.

Caulfield Village development is the biggest issue in Glen Eira, much bigger and much more important than GESAC ever was. There are so many reasons for it, not least of which is the associated Caulfield Racecourse issue. All of the troubling issues are a result of the lack of Public and Public Realm considerations. The critical problems are:
• Unwanted high rise development;
• Traffic congestion;
• Insufficient parking;
• Unnecessary training on Crown Land;
• Public barrier fence and inaccessibility to Public use of Public Crown Land;
• Increased use of betting and pokies facilities on Crown Land;

And the resultant effects include:
• Likely increase of unwanted and unruly social behaviour;
• Likely increased environmental degradation of the Racecourse Crown Land and due to Caulfield Village high rise development;
• Likely non-equitable and low economic return on the greedy grab of monies made by MRC and VATC of its immoral and exclusive use of Crown Land since at least 1948

The outcry and action by disaffected and angry residents is yet to be fully expressed as the issue unfolds further. Whether Caulfield Village and Racecourse will become a political hot, hot potato is still uncertain, because it will depend on if, and how, those issues will be dealt with in the first instance by the Council. But if this issue is not resolved before the State election of November all politicians, local, state or federal will eventually be drawn into the quagmire of anger, first at the Council decision on Amendment C60, Planning Scheme changes, Municipal Strategic Statement modifications and various Ministerial responses to upcoming Council decisions.

The Victorian State election may then be fought on that issue with a number of MPs being challenged on those unresolved Public issues. It is not clear at this stage which Party and which candidates in the State election will pick-up this issue and run with it. It is certain though that the fight for the seat of Caulfield will become embroiled in that issue. So who is there at this stage? Helen Shardey is retiring and David Southwick is the Liberal Party candidate for Caulfield. We will not know until all other candidates are known who else will enter the fray for the seat of Caulfield.

Then there is the Upper House Southern Metropolitan Region, which covers Caulfield with five MPs vying for re-election. They are: ALP John Lenders Treasurer and Jennifer Huppert, LP David Davis and Andrea Coote, and Green Sue Penniciuk. Jennifer Huppert is a resident of Caulfield and has her office there. She became an MP as a result of Evan Thornley’s resignation from Parliament. Thornley’s election to Parliament was marginal and based on preferences. Hence Jennifer Huppert ‘re-election ‘in her own right is rather tenuous. She may not be elected if there is a backlash against the Victorian Government’s unwanted decisions regarding Caulfield Village and Racecourse.

Fundamentally it depends on how well the residents organise themselves to oppose Melbourne Racing Club developments of the Caulfield Village and Caulfield Racecourse. Large group political action may result in the State Government to react to mollify residents’ grievances. However, if it is just a bunch of rowdy individuals their concerns will be ignored by all politicians at local, state or federal levels.

Finally, this development is only the first step! Given council’s pro-development stance, and its refusal to address crucial issues through its planning schemes, then Glen Eira can expect the onslaught of inappropriate development to continue throughout the municipality. This isn’t only about people living close to Monash and the Racecourse – it will embroil all residents, regardless of whichever suburb they currently reside in. The community needs to voice and demonstrate its opposition to developments they do not want in an organized and coherent way on all fronts – local, state, and federal.

 

August 20, 2010

Seeking an Accountable Council

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
Comments Off on Seeking an Accountable Council 

Annual and quarterly reports presented by Council are glowing endorsements of how well this council’s operations function. We are proudly told that phone calls are not only answered in nanoseconds, but that they are ‘resolved’ at first point of call. Wonderful stuff! What we’re not told is exactly how many satisfied customers are out there; nor how many of their issues are resolved to their complete satisfaction. Put simply, we and probably the majority of councillors in the majority of cases, never actually get to find out what residents might be complaining, or congratulating Council about.

We intend to resolve this question. Over the past month we have received a number of comments (not published) that can only be called ‘complaints’. They range from complaints about service delivery, to graffiti, to perceived waste of ratepayers money. We believe that the community has a right to know exactly what residents like and dislike and how well their concerns are being attended to. Hence we’ve decided to set up what we’ve called ‘Residents’ Corner’. A link is provided on the left hand side of the webpage under the heading of ‘Why We’re Here’. All that needs to be done is to click the link (‘Residents’ Corner’) and you may enter your complaint, praise, commentary – either anonymously if you so desire, or you may leave your name. We will then ensure that these comments are passed onto councillors. It then becomes their duty to ensure that not only are your issues seen to and fixed, but that the systems within which they operate are improved and accountable.

We no longer want to be told time and time again that residents are enraptured with how their money is spent. We want cold, hard, evidence that things can, and should be improved. So, we ask readers to alert their friends, neighbours, relatives and let us really know what you think about Glen Eira and its mandate to serve the people. ‘Residents’ Corner’ will thus be a public and accessible archive of Glen Eira’s failings and successes.

 

August 19, 2010

‘Consultation’, Submissions and Glen Eira Spin

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
1 Comment 

It seems that Glen Eira Council is very, very, selective in the submissions they actually include in the minutes of their meetings. Apart from those legislated under Section 223 of the Local Government Act, and a Council resolution which also demanded the publication in full of submissions on budgets and council plans, the publication of residents’ points of view remains adhoc, and very selective. This is nowhere more obvious than in the last council meeting. On important issues such as planning scheme review we, the public, don’t even get a summary of the 30 odd submissions. On the bicycle strategy, again, no publication. But hey! There they are, all the ones on the toilet strategy!

Even here however, the spin, deception, and deliberate obfuscation is evident. We cite the following example. Council ‘summarised’ the submission from the Box Cottage lessees as follows –

Submissions Comments Council Response
1 Lessee Why is there no toilet at Box cottage, Joyce Park? Is is possible to install one on site or closer to the property?

 

 

 The Joyce Park Masterplan provides for a single Exeloo toilet located within 150m of Box Cottage. • There are no sewerage facilities at the Box Cottage end of Joyce Park. 

• Given the proximity to the existing Exeloo another facility is not warranted.

 

 

What these good people actually wrote is cited below. Readers should note Council’s summary and response to these paragraphs. Unless you actually bother and go to the source, then a totally different picture emerges. This is spin designed to mislead and ignore the submission. It also makes us wonder at the intelligence of whoever decided to include the actual submissions so that cross checking might occur!!!!!

 ‘Until the latter half of 2008 there was a block of public toilets both Ladies and Gents located approximately 40 meters, making it an 80 metres return trip to the toilet from ‘Box Cottage’. Whilst these toilets were certainly a ‘walk’ away from ‘Box Cottage’ Museum they were still reasonably conveniently located for the Box Cottage Museum visitors, the volunteers staffing the museum, as well as the public using the seating or rotunda sited at the Jasper Road end of Joyce Park.

In 2008 the new public toilet was installed in totally different area, toward the northern end of the park, some 150 metres, making it a 300 metres return trip to the toilet, from the ‘Box Cottage Museum. This considerable distance has become an issue, especially in very hot, rainy, or cold weather.

It is a fact that organised community groups who might choose to visit the museum are generally comprised of retired older adults, and ‘to put it simply’ they expect a toilet to be located on-site, or close to ‘Box Cottage’ museum, rather than the substantial 300 metres trip there and back to a toilet. For example: recently the Probus Club of Noble Park (once again, older adults), enquired about bringing a busload of their members to visit the ‘Box Cottage’ Museum. This group cancelled when the organiser realised the museum did not have a toilet close by.”

 What all of this reveals is: 

  1. The absolute necessity for all submissions on all issues to be published so that the public may make up its own mind as to the validity of the argument/issue raised and the appropriateness of Council’s response and action(s).
  2. The need for Councillors, who have supposedly read all submissions, to ensure that the so called summaries are accurate and fully convey the intention of the author.  

Finally, the Box Cottage toilet fiasco is again indicative of a council which simply ignores the basics – ie. To have first and foremost consulted with the occupiers of the facility and its users, before ripping up a toilet, and probably plumbing (at god knows what cost!) and replacing it with another that does not serve its clientele well.

 

August 19, 2010

Occam’s Razor responds to Reprobate

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
Comments Off on Occam’s Razor responds to Reprobate 

We received the following comment and thought it deserved to be highlighted.

‘Reprobate’ please continue your fascinating analysis of what is wrong with Glen Eira’s Officers approach to analysis and reporting of facts and data.

I too have problems with that for a long time. I find that Glen Eira Officers use weasel manipulative words to control Councillors, communities and even the State Government MPs and bureaucrats. And their primary goal in any reporting is to make the Council look good on paper.

As to the traffic issue, it is part of the Public Realm consideration of any government. Any self respecting traffic expert will tell you that congestion have to be kept below a certain level to avoid bottlenecks and unavailability of roads. The measure is not traffic averaged over a period of time, but the number of times that a road is inaccessible and unavailable. A perfect example of that is Glenhuntly Rd from Nepean Highway to Koornang Rd. There are three intersections that illustrate that fundamental point.

Nepean Highway / Glenhuntly Rd intersection has a road overpass at Elsternwick station. That intersection has a level of congestion and Glenhuntly Rd unavailability determined by car traffic flows, tram schedule and traffic lights. This intersection should be used as a benchmark for other intersections on Glenhuntly Rd. There is clearly plenty that can be improved at that intersection, which should be driven by Council’s Engineering together with VicRoads and Yarra Trams.

The other intersection to be closely examined is Glenhuntly Rd / Hawthorn Rd in Caulfield South. There are two tram lines there and the level of congestion and road unavailability measure provides a good indicator of this area’s ability to grow its commercial and community activities. This shopping centre has a great potential for improvement, if only the Council would focus on the Public Realm elements and do a Structure Plan for the area.

Let’s consider now the disaster level crossing intersection of Frankston rail line and Glenhuntly Rd at Glen Huntly station. Any examination of that level crossing will show an unacceptable level of road unavailability and congestion. The number of times that traffic banks up from Grange Rd to Booran Rd (633 m) while the slow train arrives and leaves the station is already unsustainable. Anybody, just come during peak hours and experience it yourself. In addition this and Neerim Rd level crossings is a disaster waiting to happen as it already happened at Bentleigh station. Clearly those level crossings must be replaced with a road overpass or underpass to reduce the unacceptable level of road unavailability. The area around Glen Huntly station has also a great potential for improvement, if only the Council would do a Structure Plan as suggested by the State Government several times since 2003.

Finally, roads between intersections should have the capability to carry the traffic generated by the population of the area and the transport network within and around Glen Eira. As ‘Reprobate’ points out, the deliberate non-action of Officers leads to unsatisfactory capability of Glenhuntly Road. The width of this road is highly variable and it has some peculiar access roads onto it (eg Orrong Rd), which may have been ok for low traffic horse drawn carriages, but clearly are not ok for a modern city full of cars, trams, buses, cyclists, pedestrians and railway crossings.

 

August 18, 2010

The Whiteside Saga: the not so ‘bold’ and not so ‘beautiful’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[4] Comments 

The following article appeared in yesterday’s Caulfield Leader –

 

Letter uproar: Councillors slam former deputy over CEO allegations

“GLEN Eira councillors have strongly denied former deputy mayor Helen Whiteside’s claims of ‘‘bad governance’’ and ‘‘unacceptable behaviour’’ while continuing to suppress her threepage letter of resignation.  

Councillors were to vote on whether to release the letter at last week’s council meeting, but Cr Michael Lipshutz moved a motion to just ‘‘note’’ her resignation instead. Though Cr Jim Magee pushed for it to be made public, his requests were largely ignored.

Mrs Whiteside has provided more detail about her decision to quit on July 30. She said she wanted to know why the cost of reappointing chief executive Andrew Newton – who has held the role for 10 years – soared from $6500 to $44,000. Mr Newton was reappointed for two years in April. ‘‘I was aware of the cost and how it was escalating,’’ Mrs Whiteside said. ‘‘I was on the committee and I was not kept in the loop. I was appalled the cost of reappointing him was over $44,000 when I left office.’’

Mayor Steven Tang refuted suggestions of bad behaviour. ‘‘To the extent former councillor Whiteside’s comments are based on attributing ulterior motives to opposing views, I reject this inference wholeheartedly,’’ he said.

Cr Michael Lipshutz said he was saddened and disappointed ‘‘that Helen has not only resigned but has done so with spite and malice denigrating in such an untruthful way the council and her colleagues’’. Cr Margaret Esakoff is the new deputy mayor.” (end of article)

It is with sheer amazement that we read Whiteside’s ‘explanation’ for her departure. If this is not disingenuous then we don’t know what is! Professed concern for ratepayers $44,000 is ‘noble’ – but hey! This information was made public months and months ago via a public question. So it’s only now that Whiteside quits? Why the silence for months and months? Perhaps the real reason is not our hard earned cash being spent, but the simple fact that her preference was a five year term for Newton. Seems that her admitted ‘disappointment’ at the two year contract is a more plausible reason. Further, given Magee’s support of this position, then of course he would also push for the release of her letter.

Then we have the ‘other side’ – Lipshutz and co. Seems that their tirade against Whiteside and the resultant bad publicity, has cautioned them to write the following epistle which appeared in today’s Moorabbin Leader under the tag line We’re Here to Help –

“We write in response to an article ‘Glen Eira councillor walks out’ (Leader August 11th).  As Glen Eira councillors we have sworn an oath to undertake the duties of the office of councillor in the best interests of the people of the municipal district of Glen Eira.

We understand that in representing the people of Glen Eira we will disagree from time to time.

We respect each other’s right to hold informed but different views and have always understood that disagreement does not mean disharmony.

We encourage a spirit of debate at council where councillors may respectfully take diametrically opposed positions on one issue and then strongly agree on the next. These differences do not affect our ability to maintain professional and cordial relationships.

We look forward to welcoming our new councillor colleague and offer him or her all the assistance required  to fully and effectively represent the Glen Eira community.”

City of Glen Eira councillors.

We can now really rest assured that the ‘spirit of debate’ is alive and well and that there is no ‘disharmony’ within the wonderful ‘club’ that is Glen Eira!

 

August 17, 2010

Rage at Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[10] Comments 

Front page of today’s Caulfield Leader by Jenny Ling:

Call to reject Caulfield East plan

OUTRAGED residents are urging the council and State Government to reject a 147-page report recommending the Melbourne Racing Club’s Caulfield Village plan should go ahead.  

The report comes after six days of public hearings before an independent panel in May about the multi-million dollar high-rise development in Caulfield East.  

The plan calls for up to 1200 units and 35,000sq m of commercial, offices and shops around Caulfield Racecourse. Three buildings would be up to 15 storeys. The report found:  

TRAFFIC congestion in the area is not dissimilar to many in metropolitan Melbourne  

THE MRC can sufficiently accommodate demand for parking  

THE MRC and the council need to ensure infrastructure associated with the development is provided for; and  

THE council pursue improved on and off-street parking with the MRC for events at the racecourse.  

The report says: ‘‘The panel is satisfied that considerable strategic work has been undertaken for this site . . . the subject land should be redeveloped’’. But resident Peter Brohier said it was ‘‘a gross missed opportunity’’. ‘‘I would urge the council and State Government not to follow the panel’s recommendations,’’ Mr Brohier said. ‘‘It will not maximise the area’s economic potential for all stakeholders.’’  

Resident Lee Perring said she was disappointed with the report.  ‘‘Living in the area and seeing the parking . . . it’s going to cause unmitigated hell,’’ she said.  

Mayor Steven Tang said he was pleased the panel had noted key concerns with parking and traffic.  

Council officers will now prepare another report recommending it be adopted with or without changes – or be abandoned completely.  

AND HERE’S WHAT THEY ALL SAID:

BRIAN DISCOMBE, MRC -“Caulfield Village will provide long term sustainability for the club and provide a wide range of options for living , employment, shopping and relaxation. It will bring significant investment into Caulfield.”

STEVEN TANG, MAYOR – “The development could contribute positively to the Glen Eira community but still presents a number of challenges. Car parking, traffic and open space provision represent significant hurdles for the development.”

DUNCAN ELLIOTT, VIC ROADS – “The development has the potential to allow the community to better access public transport services which support activity within the precinct and become a convenient source of parking for communters and university students.”

PETER BROHIER, RESIDENT – “It’s time the council and State Government accepted that panel findings within guidelines may not best serve the public interest. In this case they will not maximise the area’s economic potential for all stakeholders.”

AND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR –

Tail Wagging the Dog
 
Glen Eira Council’s recent Rosstown Ward meeting about level crossings was diabolical. The Department of Transport representative confirmed there was no money and no substantive plan for grade separations for the Carnegie/Murumeena/Glen Huntly areas.
Mayor Steven Tang tacitly acknowledged that council policies (aided by VCAT) were responsible for the mess, but had no money to fix the situation. In response to critical comments he reaffirmed the council’s intention to promote development without the infrastructure to support dense living.
And senior council officers believe Carnegie should be more like New York. You have been warned.
Richard Smith

 

 

August 16, 2010

The Whitewash: C60 Planning Report

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[2] Comments 

The Caulfield (Village) Racecourse Panel Report is a lengthy document of 147 pages. It makes for incredible reading. The undoubted highlights are:

  • Removal of much third party (and hence resident) objection rights
  • High density development of at least 8 storeys
  • Traffic congestion
  • Loss of public open space
  • Impact on retailing and businesses throughout neighbouring commercial centres
  • The abject failure of Council to adequately prepare and present on behalf of residents

Rather than include an extremely lengthy post here, we have uploaded a copy of selected quotes from the Report. The quotes are organised under specific categories such as ‘purpose’, ‘density’, ‘open space’, etc., so readers may go directly to the issues that interest them.

We have also BOLDED many sections that we believe are vital in grasping the overall impact that this report is likely to have on the community. We have already commented on the fact that the MRC and Monash were represented by Senior Cousels, and consultant ‘experts’ in stark contrast to council’s meagre performance. This failure to present a plausible case is also bolded where appropriate.

Finally, the document will be permanently available by clicking the link on the left hand side of the webpage, under the title ‘C60 Planning Report’ or the following: https://gleneira.blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/c60-panel-report-revised-1.doc

 We urge all readers to go through this carefully and to express their views.

 

August 15, 2010

Dispelling the myth of democracy in Glen Eira!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
1 Comment 

Lipshutz in his tirade again Whiteside claimed:

“all Councillors without exception and whether or not agreeing with each other have concentrated on the issues and have not allowed any personal differences to impinge upon their work as Councillors. This is clearly reflected in the voting pattern inasmuch as there is no voting pattern.”

‘No voting pattern’ – you’ve got to be kidding. Residents have been repeatedly told that councillors engage in ‘robust’ and ‘vigorous’ debate. Pity is, that this does not occur in the Council chambers – only behind the veil of secrecy of councillor briefings. Councillor briefing meetings are meant to ‘inform’, not to orchestrate voting patterns that will later be performed for the gallery in the council chambers.

As evidence of the above, we ask readers to consider the following table. We have gone through the minutes of every council meeting since the election of the current crop of councillors and added up the number of resolutions put to the vote, and the actual number that were passed unanimously. The results are staggering – just on 90% of resolutions/recommendations have been passed unanimously. The vast majority that were merely ‘carried’, involved planning applications. Even here, the ‘carried’ vote overwhelmingly supported the officer recommendations. Paltry amendments came into play only when there were plenty of objectors!

The stuff that really mattered, such as major policies, and shoddy/misleading reports by council officers, were to an incredible degree accepted fully and generally without amendment. The last council meeting which was jam packed with important strategies that will determine future directions were all passed unanimously with some innocuous amendments such as ‘advocating’ to state and federal governments.

Please note that in the numbers provided we did not count such votes as leave of absence, confirmation of previous minutes, etc. 

The table is a sad indictment on the gross failure of Glen Eira Council to conduct itself with integrity. Add to the table the even more startling fact that most votes are taken with little or no debate, then the whole governance process reeks with repetitive breaches, over an extended period of time, of the provisions of the Local Government Act for open, transparent, and honest conduct of Council meetings. Clearly the whole council should be sacked.

Dateof Council Meeting No. ofResolutions for each meeting No. of resolutionspassed

UNANIMOUSLY
9th December 2008 2 2
16th December 2008 23 23
3rd February 2009 13 12
24th February 2009 22 19
17th March 2009 19 16
7th April, 2009 18 17
30th April 2009 10 9
12 May 2 2
19th May 2009 13 12
9th June 2009 17 13
30th June 2009 26 24
21st July 2009 19 18
11th August 2009 8 7
1st September 2009 21 20
22nd September 2009 14 13
13th October 2009 19 15
4th November 2009 19 19
24th November 2009 21 18
15 December 2009 25 22
2nd February 2010 13 12
23rd February 2010 12 10
16th March 2010 8 6
17th March 2010 1 1
7th April 2010 9 9
27th April 2010 13 11
17th May 2010 19 17
8th June 2010 16 14
22nd June 2010 1 1
29th June 2010 23 20 (and one lost motion)
20th July 2010 17 12
10th August 2010 18 18
     
TOTAL 461 412 EQUALS 89.37%
     
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »