Decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRIMARY CARE CONTRACTOR ORGANISATION PHARMACY PRACTICES COMMITTEE Application by Lindsay & Gilmour, Pharmacy (The Red Band Chemical Company Ltd trading as) for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list in respect of the address, 20-22 Whitehouse Road, Cramond, Edinburgh EH4 6AX. The Pharmacy Practices Committee met at 11.30am on Wednesday 20 January 2010 at Pentland House, 47 Robb’s Loan, Edinburgh EH14 1TY to consider the above application in accordance with the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee The decision of the Committee was that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises was neither necessary nor desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names are included in the pharmaceutical list and that accordingly the application should not be granted. Pharmacy Practices Committee Jack Aitchison, Chair Peter Jones, Non-contractor Pharmacist Mike Embrey, Contractor Pharmacist Margaret Tait, Lay member Carole Stevenson, Lay member Lynda, Campbell, NHS Lothian Administrator to the Pharmacy Practices Committee, accompanied by Susan Summers 1. The Committee convened to consider an application for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list, dated 27 November 2008, by Lindsay & Gilmour Pharmacy in respect of the address, 20-22 Whitehouse Road, Cramond, Edinburgh EH4 6HX. A copy of the application had been circulated in advance to the Committee and the parties. 2. Written representations had been received from John Sinclair, Barnton Pharmacy; Dara O’Malley, Omnicare Pharmacy; Charles Taits, Boots UK Ltd and Matthew Cox, Lloyds Pharmacy. A late representation was also received from Anne Lorimer, Lothian Pharmaceutical Committee. The applicant and interested parties were entitled to comment on the representations received, but no such comments were made. Copies of the written representations had been circulated in advance to the committee and interested parties. 3. A letter of support was received from Cramond Community Council. Additionally, unsolicited letters of support were received from The Cramond Association; Cramond Heritage Trust; Councillor Norman Work, The City of Edinburgh Council; Margaret Smith, MSP and The Rt. Honourable George Grubb, Lord Provost, The City of Edinburgh Council. Those mentioned have no statutory right to make representations on this matter. However the letters were made available to the committee for information only. 4. Two further late unsolicited letters were received, one on the 19th January 2010 from Kate Mackenzie, Councillor for Almond Ward, City of Edinburgh Council and the other on the day of the hearing from Cramond Medical Practice via Mr Sinclair. Both these letters were made available to the committee for information only. 5. The Committee had before them maps of the area surrounding the proposed premises detailing the location of the nearest pharmacies and GP surgeries, deprivation categories and population density. They had details of the numbers of prescriptions dispensed during the months March 2009 – August 2009 by the pharmacies nearest to the proposed premises and the number of prescriptions they dispensed that were issued from the GP surgeries closest to the premises during the months July 2009 – September 2009. The Committee were also provided with “Pharmacy Profiles” of the nearest pharmacies detailing opening hours, premises facilities and services offered. 6. Under paragraph 5(10) of the Regulations the Committee was required to decide whether “the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises named in the application is necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises are located by persons whose names are included in the pharmaceutical list.” 7. It had been confirmed prior to the meeting that the members present did not have an interest to declare. 8. The Committee agreed to invite the applicant Lindsay & Gilmour Pharmacy and those who were present who had made written representations to attend before them. They were: Yvonne Williams, representing Lindsay & Gilmour Pharmacy & Colin Lowe, assisting in the presentation of the application Mr John Sinclair, representing Barnton Pharmacy Mr Dara O’Malley, representing Omnicare Pharmacy Mark Malone, representing Lloyds Pharmacy (as an observer only) 9. The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed and no person present objected. 10. The procedure adopted by the Committee was that the applicant made an opening submission to the Committee, which was followed by an opportunity for the objectors and the Committee to ask questions. The objectors then made their oral representations and the applicant and the Committee then asked the objectors questions. The parties were then given an opportunity to sum up. Before the parties left the meeting the Chairman asked all parties if they felt that they had had a fair and full hearing. They confirmed that they had. 11. Prior to the meeting the Committee undertook a site visit. The Committee noted the location of the proposed premises, the pharmacies nearest to the proposed premises, the nearest GP surgeries and the neighbourhood as defined by the applicant. 12. The Committee was required to and did take account of all relevant factors concerning the issues of neighbourhood, adequacy of existing pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood and whether the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises named in the application was necessary or desirable to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises are located. Neighbourhood - Applicant 13. The Committee noted that the applicant, Lindsay & Gilmour Pharmacy, had defined the neighbourhood as West: the River Almond; North: the River Forth; East: the longitudinal line taken due north from the corner of Gamekeeper’s Road and Cramond Road to the River Forth and, South: Brae Park Road across to Barnton Avenue West up to Gramekeeper’s Road. 14. The applicant clarified in her oral submission that the neighbourhood can be defined by looking at the housing types which clearly change on passing Brae Park Road into Barnton where a few large estates developed in the 1970s consisting of suburban family homes have formed that community. Ms Williams contended also that the neighbourhood can be defined very clearly by its topography. Cramond is on one side of the valley and Barnton on the other side with Brae Park Road in the dip of this valley. 15. Ms Williams went on to remind the panel of Lord Nimmo Smith’s statement in relation to the definition of a neighbourhood. She went on to quote “neighbourhood is not defined in the regulations and must therefore be given the meaning which would normally be attributed to it as an ordinary word of the English Language. As the word is ordinarily understood, it has connotations of vicinity or nearness ……. The word “neighbourhood” in regulation 5 (10) of the 1995 regulations means an area which is relatively near to the premises in question, which need not have any residents, and which can be regarded as a neighbourhood for all purposes”. 16. Ms Williams advised that a neighbourhood is therefore a place where people would consider themselves neighbours. She also advised that it is not, as often misunderstood, a place with a predefined list of amenities. This is not what “a neighbourhood of all purposes” means. Ms Williams stated that the residents of Cramond considered themselves “neighbours” of their fellow residents of Cramond. She suggested that it is a village, a community. 17. Ms Williams contended that the residents of Cramond do not consider themselves neighbours of the residents of Barnton for instance. Ms Williams concluded this issue by also advising that it is important in identifying a neighbourhood to take into account the opinions of those living within this neighbourhood. She suggested that this is demonstrated in the committee’s papers by the views of the residents expressed in the letters submitted by Cramond Community Council and by the Cramond Association and Cramond Heritage Trust who regard themselves as residents and organisations of the distinct community – Cramond Village. Neighbourhood – Interested Parties 18. Mr Sinclair from Barnton Pharmacy in his oral submission defined the neighbourhood as to the West by the River Almond – a natural barrier; to the East by Cramond Road South and the former Moray House site, to the Esplanade and up to east of Burgess Golf Club; to the North by the Firth of Forth – a natural barrier and, to the South by Queensferry Road which forms a natural barrier. 19. In his oral submission, Mr Sinclair also advised that the neighbourhood suggested is unreasonable as it omits Whitehouse Road where Barnton Pharmacy is situated. He went on to advise that Cramond Ward does not stop at Ferry Road. 58% of the ward live north of Queensferry Road, at Cramond and Barnton. On the south side of Queensferry Road, Cammo accounts for 13% of the ward and Parkgrove/Clermiston 29%. 20. Mr O’Malley, Omnicare Pharmacy Ltd, stated in his oral submission that the NAP 2007 defined the neighbourhood clearly. In the NAP decision dated 14th January 2008 it states “The Panel considered that in light of such criteria, the neighbourhood should be designed as follows – on the west the River Almond, on the north the Firth of Forth, on the east a longitudinal line from the esplanade at the Firth of Forth running to the east of the new housing on the Moray House College site across North Cramond Road and the Bruntsfield Links Golf Course, excluding the housing on Barnton Avenue East and running to the west of the Royal High School grounds to Queensferry Road. The boundaries on the west and north are natural boundaries. The boundaries on the east is a natural boundary marked by open ground, a golf course and the area of woodland lying between the housing at the eastern end of Barnton Park estate and the Royal High Schools grounds.