DOCSLIB.ORG

US SAILING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM & PROCEDURES MANUAL 2013—2016 Effective—1 January 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US SAILING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM & PROCEDURES MANUAL 2013—2016 Effective—1 January 2013 [Type text ] [Type text ] [Type text ] US SAILING FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM & PROCEDURES MANUAL 2013—2016 Effective—1 January 2013 Originally Published—May 2013 US Sailing Member of the PO Box 1260 15 Maritime Drive Portsmouth, RI 02871-0907 Phone: 1-401-683-0800 / Toll free: 1-800-USSAIL - (1-800-877-2451) Fax: 401-683-0840 E-Mail: [email protected] International Paralympic Committee Roger H S trube, MD – A pril 20 13 1 ROGE R H STRUBE, MD – APRIL 2013 [Type text ] [Type text ] [Type text ] Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Appendix to Introduction – Glossary of Medical Terminology .......................................................................... 7 Joint Movement Definitions: ........................................................................................................................... 7 Neck ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Shoulder .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Elbow ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Wrist ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Hand ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Trunk ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Hip .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Knee ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Ankle ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Glossary of Other Medical Terms you may Encounter ..................................................................................... 8 Part A General Over View and Sailor Evaluation ....................................................................................... 12 A1.0 General Overview and Sailor Evaluation ......................................................................................... 12 A1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 12 A1.2 Sailing Functions ........................................................................................................................ 12 A1.3 Ranking of Functional Limitations ............................................................................................... 12 A1.4 Eligibility for Competition ........................................................................................................... 12 A1.5 Minimum Disability .................................................................................................................... 13 A2.0 US Sailing Class and Status ............................................................................................................. 14 A2.1 Class .......................................................................................................................................... 14 A2.2 Class Status ................................................................................................................................ 15 A2.3 US Sailing Master List ................................................................................................................. 16 A3.0 Classification Procedure ................................................................................................................. 17 A3.1 Classification Administrative Fee ................................................................................................ 17 A3.2 Personal Assistive Devices .......................................................................................................... 17 A3.3 Disability Verification by Sailor’s Personal Medical Providers ...................................................... 17 A3.4 Sailors’ Responsibility for Classification Evaluation ..................................................................... 18 A3.5 Method of Assessment............................................................................................................... 19 A3.6 Deciding the Class ...................................................................................................................... 22 A3.7 Vision Impairment ...................................................................................................................... 23 2 ROGE R H STRUBE, MD – APRIL 2013 [Type text ] [Type text ] [Type text ] A4.0 Specific Rules for Boat Classes ........................................................................................................ 24 A4.2 Non-Paralympic Boat Classes ..................................................................................................... 25 A5.0 Classification Administration and Regulations ................................................................................ 25 A5.1 US Sailing Classification Administration Fee................................................................................ 25 A5.2 Master List ................................................................................................................................. 26 A5.3 Sailor Failure to Attend Evaluation ............................................................................................. 26 A5.4 Non-co-operation during the Evaluation .................................................................................... 26 A5.5 Intentional Misrepresentation of Skills and/or Abilities .............................................................. 26 Appendices to Part A ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A1 – Benchmarks ....................................................................................................................... 28 Classification ......................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A2.0 Functional Classification Documents ............................................................................... 29 Appendix A2.1.1 Classification Agreement – Completed by the Sailor ................................................. 29 Appendix A2.1.2 US Sailing Classification Administrative Fee: $50 ...................................................... 30 Appendix A2.1.3 Athlete Disability Information Form ......................................................................... 31 Appendix A2.2.1 Functional Anatomical Test (FA) – Neck & Upper Extremity ...................................... 32 Appendix A2.2.2 Functional Anatomical Test – Trunk & Lower Extremities ......................................... 33 Appendix A2.2.3 Functional Dock (FD) and Functional Sailing Test (Sail) .............................................. 34 Appendix A2.2.4 Classification Results – Scoring ................................................................................. 35 Appendix A3 Classification Review and WADA Notice Form ................................................................. 36 Appendix A4 Scoring Rules -- Impaired Strength, Movement, Co-ordination ........................................ 37 Appendix A5 Rating Chart for Class, FA points and FD/FS points .......................................................... 38 Appendix A6 US Sailing Vision Test Forms and Exam Explanations ....................................................... 39 Appendix A6 US Sailing Vision Test Forms and Exam Explanations ....................................................... 40 Appendix A6 US Sailing Vision Test Forms and Exam Explanations ....................................................... 41 Appendix A7 How to Perform Tests and Determine Rating (Under Ongoing Development) ................. 42 Appendix A8 Classification for Single-Person (SP) Dinghy..................................................................... 46 Appendix A9 Modifications for Non-Paralympic Boat Classes .............................................................. 46 Appendix A10 Procedure for Vision Document Analysis ........................................................................ 47 Appendix A11 Procedure to Determine Sailor’s IBSA & US Sailing Impaired Vision Class ........................ 48 Appendix A12 US Sailing Classification Fee ($50.00) .............................................................................. 49 Part B Protests and Appeals ..................................................................................................................... 50 B 1.0 Protests ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disability Classification System
    CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR STUDENTS WITH A DISABILITY Track & Field (NB: also used for Cross Country where applicable) Current Previous Definition Classification Classification Deaf (Track & Field Events) T/F 01 HI 55db loss on the average at 500, 1000 and 2000Hz in the better Equivalent to Au2 ear Visually Impaired T/F 11 B1 From no light perception at all in either eye, up to and including the ability to perceive light; inability to recognise objects or contours in any direction and at any distance. T/F 12 B2 Ability to recognise objects up to a distance of 2 metres ie below 2/60 and/or visual field of less than five (5) degrees. T/F13 B3 Can recognise contours between 2 and 6 metres away ie 2/60- 6/60 and visual field of more than five (5) degrees and less than twenty (20) degrees. Intellectually Disabled T/F 20 ID Intellectually disabled. The athlete’s intellectual functioning is 75 or below. Limitations in two or more of the following adaptive skill areas; communication, self-care; home living, social skills, community use, self direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work. They must have acquired their condition before age 18. Cerebral Palsy C2 Upper Severe to moderate quadriplegia. Upper extremity events are Wheelchair performed by pushing the wheelchair with one or two arms and the wheelchair propulsion is restricted due to poor control. Upper extremity athletes have limited control of movements, but are able to produce some semblance of throwing motion. T/F 33 C3 Wheelchair Moderate quadriplegia. Fair functional strength and moderate problems in upper extremities and torso.
    [Show full text]
  • Ifds Functional Classification System & Procedures
    IFDS FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM & PROCEDURES MANUAL 2009 - 2012 Effective – 1 January 2009 Originally Published – March 2009 IFDS, C/o ISAF UK Ltd, Ariadne House, Town Quay, Southampton, Hampshire, SO14 2AQ, GREAT BRITAIN Tel. +44 2380 635111 Fax. +44 2380 635789 Email: [email protected] Web: www.sailing.org/disabled 1 Contents Page Introduction 5 Part A – Functional Classification System Rules for Sailors A1 General Overview and Sailor Evaluation 6 A1.1 Purpose 6 A1.2 Sailing Functions 6 A1.3 Ranking of Functional Limitations 6 A1.4 Eligibility for Competition 6 A1.5 Minimum Disability 7 A2 IFDS Class and Status 8 A2.1 Class 8 A2.2 Class Status 8 A2.3 Master List 10 A3 Classification Procedure 10 A3.0 Classification Administration Fee 10 A3.1 Personal Assistive Devices 10 A3.2 Medical Documentation 11 A3.3 Sailors’ Responsibility for Classification Evaluation 11 A3.4 Sailor Presentation for Classification Evaluation 12 A3.5 Method of Assessment 12 A3.6 Deciding the Class 14 A4 Failure to attend/Non Co-operation/Misrepresentation 16 A4.1 Sailor Failure to Attend Evaluation 16 A4.2 Non Co-operation during Evaluation 16 A4.3 International Misrepresentation of Skills and/or Abilities 17 A4.4 Consequences for Sailor Support Personnel 18 A4.5 Consequences for Teams 18 A5 Specific Rules for Boat Classes 18 A5.1 Paralympic Boat Classes 18 A5.2 Non-Paralympic Boat Classes 19 Part B – Protest and Appeals B1 Protest 20 B1.1 General Principles 20 B1.2 Class Status and Protest Opportunities 21 B1.3 Parties who may submit a Classification Protest
    [Show full text]
  • Reducts in Multi-Adjoint Concept Lattices
    Reducts in Multi-Adjoint Concept Lattices Maria Eugenia Cornejo1, Jes´usMedina2, and Elo´ısa Ram´ırez-Poussa2 1 Department of Statistic and O.R., University of C´adiz.Spain Email: [email protected] 2 Department of Mathematics, University of C´adiz.Spain Email: fjesus.medina,[email protected] Abstract. Removing redundant information in databases is a key issue in Formal Concept Analysis. This paper introduces several results on the attributes that generate the meet-irreducible elements of a multi-adjoint concept lattice, in order to provide different properties of the reducts in this framework. Moreover, the reducts of particular multi-adjoint concept lattices have been computed in different examples. Keywords: attribute reduction, reduct, multi-adjoint concept lattice 1 Introduction Attribute reduction is an important research topic in Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) [1, 4, 10, 15]. Reducts are the minimal subsets of attributes needed in or- der to compute a lattice isomorphic to the original one, that is, that preserve the whole information of the original database. Hence, the computation of these sets is very interesting. For example, they are useful in order to obtain attribute implications and, since the complexity to build concept lattices directly depend on the number of attributes and objects, if a reduct can be detected before com- puting the whole concept lattice, the complexity will significantly be decreased. Different fuzzy extensions of FCA have been introduced [2, 3, 9, 14]. One of the most general is the multi-adjoint concept lattice framework [11, 12]. Based on a characterization of the meet-irreducible elements of a multi-adjoint concept lattice, a suitable attribute reduction method has recently been presented in [6].
    [Show full text]
  • Grade Conversion Tables for Study Abroad
    Grade conversion tables for study abroad NB These tables should only be used to convert grades FROM study abroad TO University of Glasgow grades. They should NOT be used to indicate the equivalence of University of Glasgow Grades to those from other institutions. Translation of Grades Working Group – November 2020 [minor updates – August 2021] Revised March 2019 Minor correction November 2019 Argentina Argentina Glasgow Grade 10 A1 9 A4 8 B1 7 B3 6 C2 5 D1 4 D3 3 E2 2 F2 1 G2 Rationale The table is based on the current partnership with Universidad del Salvador. Subjects with Partners in Argentina: University-wide Australia Australia Glasgow Grade 90-100% A1 85-89 A3 80-84 A5 75-79 B1 70-74 B2 65-69 B3 60-64 C1 55-59 C3 50-54 D2 44-49 E1 39-43 E2 34-38 E3 29-33 F1 24-28 F2 19-23 F3 14-18 G1 9-13 G2 0-8 H 2 University of Queensland Grade Glasgow Grade 7 (High Distinction) A2 6 (Distinction) A4 5 (Credit) B2 4 (Pass) C2 3 (Limited Pass) D2 2 (Fail) E2 1 (Fail) F2 Queensland University of Technology Grade Glasgow Grade 7 (85-100%) A1 6 (80-84%) A4 6 (75-79%) B1 5 (70-74%) B2 5 (65-69%) B3 4 (60-64%) C1 4 (50-59%) C3 3 (47-49%) D2 2 (35-46%) E2 2 (25-34%) F2 1 (0-24%) G1 Rationale The University of Queensland uses a different scale which precludes it from the national table above.
    [Show full text]
  • Recursive Syntactic Pattern Learning by Songbirds
    Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds Timothy Q. Gentner, Kimberly M. Fenn, Daniel Margoliash, and Howard C. Nusbaum Supplementary Information Table S1 provides an overview of all the training and testing conditions. Condition Stimulus 1 Baseline Training A2B2 and (AB)2, n=2 2 Transfer 1 Novel A2B2 and (AB)2, n=2 3 Probe Test 1 Familiar A2B2 and (AB)2, n=2 (80% of trials) Novel A2B2 and (AB)2, n=2 (10% of trials) Agrammatical AAAA, BBBB, ABBA, BAAB (10% of trials) 4 Probe Test 2 Familiar A2B2 and (AB)2, n=2 (80% of trials) Novel AnBn and (AB)n, n=3, 4 (20% of trials) 5 Probe Test 3 Familiar A2B2 and (AB)2, n=2 (80% of trials) A*B* (10% of trials) Novel AnBn and (AB)n, n=2,3,4 (10% of trials) Table S1. Overview of the training and testing conditions in order to which subjects were exposed. Stimuli marked with (*) comprised speech syllables instead of starling song motifs. Probe tests with novel A2B2 and (AB)2 stimuli Because the novel transfer stimuli were reinforced with the same response contingencies used in the initial training, the animals’ behaviour was changing (i.e. they were learning) as we measured generalization. To examine generalization without contingent reinforcement and thus without additional learning, we tested subjects using a “probe” procedure. The reinforcement regimen during probe sessions allowed us to measure generalization from the classes defined by the familiar CFG and FSG stimuli to novel stimuli without any direct effects of differential reinforcement learning on the latter (see Additional Methods).
    [Show full text]
  • Cam Switches
    Cam switches 10 Cam operated switches 11 General characteristics 12 Reference system 13 Technical data 14 Dimensions 18 Auxiliary contacts 19 Mounting possibilities 20 Mounting schemes 22 Special mountings 25 Accessories 31 Enclosures 32 Standard electrical schemes 46 Special diagrams 48 Main switches with undervoltage release 50 Discrepancy switches Cam switches Cam operated switches A5 cam operated switches have General characteristics been designed to operate as switch-disconnectors, main • Permits any electrical diagrams oxidation of their ferrous switches, load break switches, and makes the number of components. changeover switches, motor possible diagrams limitless. • High number of mechanical control switches,… • Abrupt breaking mechanism operations. with 30, 45, 60 o 90° positions, • According to RoHS standard. According to Standards according to diagram and requirements. • IEC 60947-3 • Contact decks made of self- • UL 508 extinguishing polyester reinforced with glass fi ber. • Silver alloy low resistance contacts with high arcing and welding characteristics. • Connection with protected cable clamps until 125A. • Electrolytic treatment against 10 low voltage electrical material Serie A5 low voltage electrical material General characteristics Simple "click" front plate fi xing Front plate designed for Internal and easy fi xing by simple push-in on the external links mounting plate Factory assembled links. Insulated external links protect against direct contact on live parts Metalic shaft Marking Optimal mechanical eff ort transmission
    [Show full text]
  • Classified Activities
    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board CLASSIFIED ACTIVITIES Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards Exposure Draft Written comments are requested by March 16, 2018 December 14, 2017 THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD The Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Comptroller General of the United States established the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB or “the Board”) in October 1990. FASAB is responsible for promulgating accounting standards for the United States government. These standards are recognized as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the federal government. Accounting standards are typically formulated initially as a proposal after considering the financial and budgetary information needs of citizens (including the news media, state and local legislators, analysts from private firms, academe, and elsewhere), Congress, federal executives, federal program managers, and other users of federal financial information. FASAB publishes the proposed standards in an exposure draft for public comment. In some cases, FASAB publishes a discussion memorandum, invitation for comment, or preliminary views document on a specific topic before an exposure draft. A public hearing is sometimes held to receive oral comments in addition to written comments. The Board considers comments and decides whether to adopt the proposed standards with or without modification. After review by the three officials who sponsor FASAB, the Board publishes adopted standards in a Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards. The Board follows a similar process for Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts, which guide the Board in developing accounting standards and formulating the framework for federal accounting and reporting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prescribed Diseases
    Industrial Injuries Benefit Handbook 2 for Healthcare Professionals The Prescribed Diseases MED-IIBHB~002 7th November 2016 INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFIT HANDBOOK 2 FOR HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS THE PRESCRIBED DISEASES Foreword This handbook has been produced as part of a training programme for Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) who conduct assessments for the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. All HCPs undertaking assessments must be registered practitioners who in addition, have undergone training in disability assessment medicine and specific training in the relevant benefit areas. The training includes theory training in a classroom setting, supervised practical training, and a demonstration of understanding as assessed by quality audit. This handbook must be read with the understanding that, as experienced practitioners, the HCPs will have detailed knowledge of the principles and practice of relevant diagnostic techniques and therefore such information is not contained in this training module. In addition, the handbook is not a stand-alone document, and forms only a part of the training and written documentation that the HCP receives. As disability assessment is a practical occupation, much of the guidance also involves verbal information and coaching. Thus, although the handbook may be of interest to non-medical readers, it must be remembered that some of the information may not be readily understood without background medical knowledge and an awareness of the other training
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptanalysis of Boyen's Attribute-Based Encryption Scheme
    Cryptanalysis of Boyen’s Attribute-Based Encryption Scheme in TCC 2013 Shweta Agrawal1, Rajarshi Biswas1, Ryo Nishimaki2, Keita Xagawa2, Xiang Xie3, and Shota Yamada4 1 IIT Madras, Chennai, India [email protected], [email protected] 2 NTT Secure Platform Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan [ryo.nishimaki.zk,keita.xagawa.zv]@hco.ntt.co.jp 3 Shanghai Key Laboratory of Privacy-Preserving Computation, China [email protected] 4 National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tokyo [email protected] Abstract. In TCC 2013, Boyen suggested the first lattice based con- struction of attribute based encryption (ABE) for the circuit class NC1. Unfortunately, soon after, a flaw was found in the security proof of the scheme. However, it remained unclear whether the scheme is actually insecure, and if so, whether it can be repaired. Meanwhile, the construc- tion has been heavily cited and continues to be extensively studied due to its technical novelty. In particular, this is the first lattice based ABE which uses linear secret sharing schemes (LSSS) as a crucial tool to en- force access control. In this work, we show that the scheme is in fact insecure. To do so, we provide a polynomial-time attack that completely breaks the security of the scheme. We suggest a route to fix the security of the scheme, via the notion of admissible linear secret sharing schemes (LSSS) and instantiate these for the class of DNFs. Subsequent to our work, Datta, Komargodski and Waters (Eurocrypt 2021) provided a construction of admissible LSSS for NC1 and resurrected Boyen’s claimed result.
    [Show full text]
  • Surgical and Non-Surgical Management Strategies for Lateral Epicondylitis
    J Orthop Spine Trauma. 2021 March; 7(1): 1-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jost.v7i1.5958 Review Article Surgical and Non-Surgical Management Strategies for Lateral Epicondylitis Meisam Jafari Kafiabadi 1, Amir Sabaghzadeh1, Farsad Biglari2, Amin Karami3, Mehrdad Sadighi 1,*, Adel Ebrahimpour4 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shohada Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2 Orthopedic Surgeon, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shohada Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 3 Resident, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shohada Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 4 Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shohada Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran *Corresponding author: Mehrdad Sadighi; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shohada Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Tel: +98-9125754616, Email: [email protected] Received: 14 September 2020; Revised: 01 December 2020; Accepted: 12 January 2021 Abstract Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is one of the major causes of elbow pain. Despite being a self-limiting condition, its high incidence can cause a significant socioeconomic burden. Many treatment modalities have been proposed for the treatment, but the optimal strategy is still unknown. In this article, we discuss surgical and non-surgical strategies for the treatment of LE and address the research gaps. Keywords: Exercise Therapy; Lateral Epicondylitis; Tennis Elbow; Treatment Citation: Jafari Kafiabadi M, Sabaghzadeh A, Biglari F, Karami A, Sadighi M, Ebrahimpour A. Surgical and Non-Surgical Management Strategies for Lateral Epicondylitis. J Orthop Spine Trauma 2021; 7(1): 1-7. Background I-A.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 Shops, High
    Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 Shops, High Street Offices, Restaurants, Drinking Establishments and Takeaways Car Parking Cycle parking Car Parking Car Parking Standards Location Standards Servicing Requirements Threshold levels standards (minimum) Standards (minimum) (other requirements) (maximum) City Centre Primary Staff: One covered and Allocated parking is not Allocated parking Not applicable Servicing may be possible Retail Area secure cycle parking permitted is not permitted from the street for smaller space per 100m2 stores (under 2000m2) but Travel Plan 1,000m2 Customers: Where many areas have (or may Travel Information possible, the provision become) time restricted Plan 200m2 of one cycle space per access and existing off Transport Statement 50m2 within the street servicing should be - 1,000 m2 Primary City Centre retained. Developments over Transport Retail Area will 2000m2 will normally require Assessment- normally be required. off street service bays unlikely to be The TS or TA should capable of handling likely required inform the level of service vehicle generation, provision on larger including provision for developments articulated vehicles. Elsewhere in the City Staff: One covered and Allocated parking is not Allocated parking Car parking will only be Servicing may be permitted Centre Parking Area secure cycle parking permitted is not permitted permitted where this replaces on street where safe and space per 100m2 pro-rata identified public practicable. Otherwise a bay Customers: One cycle parking spaces in the city capable of holding a rigid 2 space per 50m2 centre and is available for use 11m vehicle required. Travel Plan 1,000m 2 Travel Information adjacent to principal by the general public consistent Developments over 1,000m 2 entrances or nearby if with the requirements of Policy will normally require off Plan 200m Transport Statement on highway DM29 street service bays capable 2 The TS or TA should of handling likely service - 1,000 m inform the level of 5% of total.
    [Show full text]
  • A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
    GUIDE TO USE CLASSES ORDER IN ENGLAND IN FORCE 6 APRIL 2016 The table below is intended as general guidance only. Reference needs to be made to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), for limitations (e.g floorspace maxima), restrictions, conditions and details of any requirements for any application for determination as to whether the prior approval of the local planning authority will be required, (which may include the prior approval of building operations). USE CLASS USE PERMITTED CHANGE Shops, retail warehouses, post Permitted change to or from a mixed use as A1 or A2 & up to 2 flats offices, ticket and travel Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sqm to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable agencies, sale of cold food for with notification) consumption off premises, A1 Permitted change of A1 or mixed A1 and dwellinghouse to C3 (subject to prior approval) hairdressers, funeral directors, SHOPS hire shops, dry cleaners, internet Permitted change to A2 cafés Permitted change to A3 (inclusive of buildings and other operations subject to prior approval) Permitted change to D2 (subject to prior approval) Banks, building societies, estate Permitted change to A1 where there is a display window at ground floor level. and employment agencies, Permitted change to or from a mixed use for any purpose within A2 and up to 2 flats and professional services (not health for A1 and up to 2 flats, where there is a display window
    [Show full text]