4 responses from Miss Ellen Bernfield (Individual)
1. Miss Ellen Bernfield (Individual) : 15 Apr 2012 15:49:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - R81 ARNSIDE REDHILLS ROAD
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Regard to National Policy
SLDC’s Core Strategy (CS8.2) cites the principles of “protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character” in the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. SLDC has a statutory duty to pay due regard to the AONB designation in their decision-making. AONBs and National Parks are recognised under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) to be of equal landscape quality and are both afforded the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty as nationally designated landscapes.
National Planning Framework policy (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) also designates for special protection “an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”. Again NPPF 115 cites “Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty” and “planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances” (NPPF 116).
Furthermore, the NPPF specifically states that, for both plan-making and decision-taking “specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted” in protected sites such as “land designated as….Local Green Space” (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) and that “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)” (NPPF 111).
SLDC has failed to thoroughly test the viability of existing brownfield sites within the AONB as a first priority for development.
The DPD has therefore not had regard to the Core Strategy, or national policy for the protection of AONBs in general, it has not had regard to national policy on the protection of "local green spaces" and it has not had regard to national policy on the re-use of brownfield land.
I wish the DPD to be changed to have regard for SLDC’s duty, as specified in the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, to afford the highest status of protection to the Arnside and Silverdale AONB and to its greenfield and local protected green spaces, and to follow government policy of restricting development in these areas.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I submit that the SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) for Arnside, and specifically for Site R81 Redhills Road, fails the tests for soundness to be justified (community participation), to be effective (coherence with neighbouring strategies), and for consistency with national policy as laid down in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Justified
SLDC have not “taken proper account of the views of the community” as promised in their Local Development Framework (LDF 13.10) in ignoring the community’s wish to protect its greenfield sites and designated “Important Open Spaces” within the village, in spite of numerous objections from Arnside residents (including a 550 name petition), from Arnside Parish Council (APC), Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and the management of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), among others.
LDF 13.8 states that “under the Localism Bill, the council will be subject to a duty to cooperate with local communities preparing neighbourhood plans” including giving “support, advice and information” where needed. In fact, SLDC have pushed ahead with greenfield land allocations exclusively, knowing that a Neighbourhood Plan for Arnside (which proposes several alternative brownfield sites) is in preparation by APC/APPT. NPPF Section 8, 69 also requires councils to “create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see” and to “facilitate neighbourhood planning”, and SLDC Core Strategy (CS8.1) aims to “protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements…of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community” and to “encourage the development of smaller, previously developed sites with constraints, and thus contribute to the target of 50% of housing on brownfield sites” (CS7.14).
SLDC fail to provide evidence of the participation of the local community, and others having a stake in the area and, in fact, have ignored their representations.
The SLDC Plan is therefore not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy.
For more detailed comment on the soundness of SLDC’s evidence base for viability, plus its research and facts, I refer you to the submission document entitled Specific Concerns and Objections of Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and Arnside Parish Council regarding SLDC’s Current Land Allocations, which I have read, and with whose points and requests for revision I am in full agreement.
Effective
The Arnside and Silverdale AONB crosses county borders, and is administered by both SLDC and the Lancashire City and Lancashire County councils, who make policy and take decisions respectively on planning matters across their areas.
The new National Planning Framework (NPPF 178) sets out a “duty to cooperate on planning issues across administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156”. Strategic priorities include policies to deliver “conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.”
Furthermore, NPPF 179 expects planning authorities to “work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated” to meet development requirements which might otherwise “cause significant harm to the principles and policies of this Framework.”
NPPF 181 states that “local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination. This could be by way of plans or policies prepared as part of a joint committee, a memorandum of understanding or a jointly prepared strategy which is presented as evidence of an agreed position.” NPPF 182 states that the Local Plan must prove that it “has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate”.
SLDC have failed to provide evidence, in preparing the Land Allocations DPD for Arnside (Site R81) that they have fulfilled the requirement of effective cross-boundary consultation for impacts with regard to the special protection of the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. It is therefore not effective in that the document is not deliverable.
In addition, for more detailed comment on the soundness of SLDC’s evidence base for deliverability, I refer you to the submission document entitled Specific Concerns and Objections of Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and Arnside Parish Council regarding SLDC’s Current Land Allocations, which I have read, and with whose points and requests for revision I am in full agreement.
Consistent with National Policy
I refer you to my specific comments above relating to community participation and coherence with neighbouring authorities (both of which are required by the National Planning Policy Framework), and additionally:
SLDC’s own adopted Core Strategy (CS8.2) cites the principles of “protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character” in the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. SLDC has a statutory duty to pay due regard to the AONB designation in their decision-making. AONBs and National Parks are recognised under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) to be of equal landscape quality and are both afforded the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty as nationally designated landscapes.
National Planning Framework policy cited above (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) also designates for special protection “an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”. Again NPPF 115 cites “Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty” and “planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances” (NPPF 116).
Furthermore, the NPPF specifically states that, for both plan-making and decision-taking “specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted” in protected sites such as “land designated as….Local Green Space” (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) and that “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)” (NPPF 111).
There is thus a national planning barrier to delivery on the greenfield and designated “local green space” sites (for example, Site R81) within the Arnside AONB. SLDC must therefore fulfil its declared and statutory duty to thoroughly test the viability of existing brownfield sites as a first priority. It has failed to show evidence for this.
The DPD is therefore not consistent with national policy for the protection of AONBs, it is not consistent with national policy on the protection of "local green spaces" and it is not consistent with national policy on the re-use of brownfield land.
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be justified) to take proper account of the views of the community of Arnside (in particular the Arnside Parish Plan Trust Neighbourhood Plan), as required by the SLDC Core Strategy, the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be effective) to show evidence that SLDC have fulfilled the duty to cooperate, as specified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for effective joint cross-boundary consultation with Lancashire City and County councils for cross-boundary impacts within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB which has the highest national status of protection.
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be consistent with national policy) to take account of SLDC’s statutory duty, as specified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to afford the highest status of protection to the Arnside and Silverdale AONB and to its greenfield and local protected green spaces, and to follow government policy of restricting development in these areas.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Miss Ellen Bernfield (Individual) : 15 May 2012 11:30:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - All Arnside sites
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The DPD has not had regard to national policy and does not conform generally with the adopted Core Strategy and (until it is abolished) the Regional Spatial Strategy
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Regard to National Policy
SLDC’s Core Strategy (CS8.2) cites the principles of “protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character” in the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. SLDC has a statutory duty to pay due regard to the AONB designation in their decision-making. AONBs and National Parks are recognised under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) to be of equal landscape quality and are both afforded the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty as nationally designated landscapes.
National Planning Framework policy (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) also designates for special protection “an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”. Again NPPF 115 cites “Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty” and “planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances” (NPPF 116).
Furthermore, the NPPF specifically states that, for both plan-making and decision-taking “specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted” in protected sites such as “land designated as….Local Green Space” (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) and that “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)” (NPPF 111).
SLDC has failed to thoroughly test the viability of existing brownfield sites within the AONB as a first priority for development.
The DPD has therefore not had regard to the Core Strategy, or national policy for the protection of AONBs in general, it has not had regard to national policy on the protection of "local green spaces" and it has not had regard to national policy on the re-use of brownfield land.
I wish the DPD to be changed to have regard for SLDC’s duty, as specified in the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, to afford the highest status of protection to the Arnside and Silverdale AONB and to its greenfield and local protected green spaces, and to follow government policy of restricting development in these areas.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I submit that the SLDC Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) for Arnside, and specifically for Site R81 Redhills Road, fails the tests for soundness to be justified (community participation), to be effective (coherence with neighbouring strategies), and for consistency with national policy as laid down in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Justified
SLDC have not “taken proper account of the views of the community” as promised in their Local Development Framework (LDF 13.10) in ignoring the community’s wish to protect its greenfield sites and designated “Important Open Spaces” within the village, in spite of numerous objections from Arnside residents (including a 550 name petition), from Arnside Parish Council (APC), Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and the management of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), among others.
LDF 13.8 states that “under the Localism Bill, the council will be subject to a duty to cooperate with local communities preparing neighbourhood plans” including giving “support, advice and information” where needed. In fact, SLDC have pushed ahead with greenfield land allocations exclusively, knowing that a Neighbourhood Plan for Arnside (which proposes several alternative brownfield sites) is in preparation by APC/APPT. NPPF Section 8, 69 also requires councils to “create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see” and to “facilitate neighbourhood planning”, and SLDC Core Strategy (CS8.1) aims to “protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements…of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community” and to “encourage the development of smaller, previously developed sites with constraints, and thus contribute to the target of 50% of housing on brownfield sites” (CS7.14).
SLDC fail to provide evidence of the participation of the local community, and others having a stake in the area and, in fact, have ignored their representations.
The SLDC Plan is therefore not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy.
For more detailed comment on the soundness of SLDC’s evidence base for viability, plus its research and facts, I refer you to the submission document entitled Specific Concerns and Objections of Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and Arnside Parish Council regarding SLDC’s Current Land Allocations, which I have read, and with whose points and requests for revision I am in full agreement.
Effective
The Arnside and Silverdale AONB crosses county borders, and is administered by both SLDC and the Lancashire City and Lancashire County councils, who make policy and take decisions respectively on planning matters across their areas.
The new National Planning Framework (NPPF 178) sets out a “duty to cooperate on planning issues across administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156”. Strategic priorities include policies to deliver “conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.”
Furthermore, NPPF 179 expects planning authorities to “work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated” to meet development requirements which might otherwise “cause significant harm to the principles and policies of this Framework.”
NPPF 181 states that “local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination. This could be by way of plans or policies prepared as part of a joint committee, a memorandum of understanding or a jointly prepared strategy which is presented as evidence of an agreed position.” NPPF 182 states that the Local Plan must prove that it “has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate”.
SLDC have failed to provide evidence, in preparing the Land Allocations DPD for Arnside (Site R81) that they have fulfilled the requirement of effective cross-boundary consultation for impacts with regard to the special protection of the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. It is therefore not effective in that the document is not deliverable.
In addition, for more detailed comment on the soundness of SLDC’s evidence base for deliverability, I refer you to the submission document entitled Specific Concerns and Objections of Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and Arnside Parish Council regarding SLDC’s Current Land Allocations, which I have read, and with whose points and requests for revision I am in full agreement.
Consistent with National Policy
I refer you to my specific comments above relating to community participation and coherence with neighbouring authorities (both of which are required by the National Planning Policy Framework), and additionally:
SLDC’s own adopted Core Strategy (CS8.2) cites the principles of “protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character” in the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. SLDC has a statutory duty to pay due regard to the AONB designation in their decision-making. AONBs and National Parks are recognised under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) to be of equal landscape quality and are both afforded the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty as nationally designated landscapes.
National Planning Framework policy cited above (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) also designates for special protection “an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”. Again NPPF 115 cites “Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty” and “planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances” (NPPF 116).
Furthermore, the NPPF specifically states that, for both plan-making and decision-taking “specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted” in protected sites such as “land designated as….Local Green Space” (NPPF 14, Footnote 9) and that “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)” (NPPF 111).
There is thus a national planning barrier to delivery on the greenfield and designated “local green space” sites (for example, Site R81) within the Arnside AONB. SLDC must therefore fulfil its declared and statutory duty to thoroughly test the viability of existing brownfield sites as a first priority. It has failed to show evidence for this.
The DPD is therefore not consistent with national policy for the protection of AONBs, it is not consistent with national policy on the protection of "local green spaces" and it is not consistent with national policy on the re-use of brownfield land.
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be justified) to take proper account of the views of the community of Arnside (in particular the Arnside Parish Plan Trust Neighbourhood Plan), as required by the SLDC Core Strategy, the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be effective) to show evidence that SLDC have fulfilled the duty to cooperate, as specified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for effective joint cross-boundary consultation with Lancashire City and County councils for cross-boundary impacts within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB which has the highest national status of protection.
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be consistent with national policy) to take account of SLDC’s statutory duty, as specified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to afford the highest status of protection to the Arnside and Silverdale AONB and to its greenfield and local protected green spaces, and to follow government policy of restricting development in these areas.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Miss Ellen Bernfield (Individual) : 15 May 2012 11:34:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
1.9
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Justified
SLDC have not “taken proper account of the views of the community” as promised in their Local Development Framework (LDF 13.10) in ignoring the community’s wish to protect its greenfield sites and designated “Important Open Spaces” within the village, in spite of numerous objections from Arnside residents (including a 550 name petition), from Arnside Parish Council (APC), Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and the management of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), among others.
LDF 13.8 states that “under the Localism Bill, the council will be subject to a duty to cooperate with local communities preparing neighbourhood plans” including giving “support, advice and information” where needed. In fact, SLDC have pushed ahead with greenfield land allocations exclusively, knowing that a Neighbourhood Plan for Arnside (which proposes several alternative brownfield sites) is in preparation by APC/APPT. NPPF Section 8, 69 also requires councils to “create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see” and to “facilitate neighbourhood planning”, and SLDC Core Strategy (CS8.1) aims to “protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements…of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community” and to “encourage the development of smaller, previously developed sites with constraints, and thus contribute to the target of 50% of housing on brownfield sites” (CS7.14).
SLDC fail to provide evidence of the participation of the local community, and others having a stake in the area and, in fact, have ignored their representations.
The SLDC Plan is therefore not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy.
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be justified) to take proper account of the views of the community of Arnside (in particular the Arnside Parish Plan Trust Neighbourhood Plan), as required by the SLDC Core Strategy, the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Miss Ellen Bernfield (Individual) : 15 May 2012 11:36:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
1.10
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
The DPD is not consistent with national policy.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
Justified
SLDC have not “taken proper account of the views of the community” as promised in their Local Development Framework (LDF 13.10) in ignoring the community’s wish to protect its greenfield sites and designated “Important Open Spaces” within the village, in spite of numerous objections from Arnside residents (including a 550 name petition), from Arnside Parish Council (APC), Arnside Parish Plan Trust (APPT) and the management of the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), among others.
LDF 13.8 states that “under the Localism Bill, the council will be subject to a duty to cooperate with local communities preparing neighbourhood plans” including giving “support, advice and information” where needed. In fact, SLDC have pushed ahead with greenfield land allocations exclusively, knowing that a Neighbourhood Plan for Arnside (which proposes several alternative brownfield sites) is in preparation by APC/APPT. NPPF Section 8, 69 also requires councils to “create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see” and to “facilitate neighbourhood planning”, and SLDC Core Strategy (CS8.1) aims to “protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements…of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community” and to “encourage the development of smaller, previously developed sites with constraints, and thus contribute to the target of 50% of housing on brownfield sites” (CS7.14).
SLDC fail to provide evidence of the participation of the local community, and others having a stake in the area and, in fact, have ignored their representations.
The SLDC Plan is therefore not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy.
I wish the DPD to be changed (to be justified) to take proper account of the views of the community of Arnside (in particular the Arnside Parish Plan Trust Neighbourhood Plan), as required by the SLDC Core Strategy, the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me