Decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee

PRIMARY CARE CONTRACTOR ORGANISATION PHARMACY PRACTICES COMMITTEE Application by Elixir Pharmacy Group for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list in respect of the address, 5 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AE. The Pharmacy Practices Committee met at Pentland House on 8 April 2010 Room 004 to consider the above application in accordance with the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, as amended. 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) Kaye Devlin (Contractor Pharmacist) Robbie McGregor (Contractor Pharmacist) Patricia Eason (Lay member) Ian Melville (Lay member) Louise Hockaday (Administrator to the Pharmacy Practices Committee) (accompanied by Yvonne Shaw) 1. The Committee convened to consider an application for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list, dated 10 August 2009, by Elixir Pharmacy Group in respect of the address, 5 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AE. A copy of the application had been circulated in advance to the Committee and the parties. 2. Written representations had been received from Donald Mackinnon on behalf of Mackenzie & Co Chemists, Mohammed J Iqbal on behalf of Southside Pharmacy and Peter Tinkler on behalf of Royal Mile Pharmacy. The applicant and the interested parties were entitled to comment on the representations received. No further comments were received within the specified time. However late comments on representations made were received outwith the specified time by the applicant and these were made available to the Committee for information only. Copies of the written representations had been circulated in advance to the Committee and the parties. 3. An unsolicited letter of support was received from Shirley-Anne Somerville, MSP, Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh on 8 December 2009. This person has no statutory right to make representations on this matter and the Board did not consult them. However the letter was made available to the Committee for information only. 4. 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 June 2009 – November 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 October 2009 – December 2009. The Committee were also provided with “Pharmacy Profiles” of the nearest pharmacies detailing opening hours, premises facilities and services offered. 5. 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.” 6. It had been confirmed prior to the meeting that the members present did not have an interest to declare. 7. The Committee agreed to invite the applicant, Yaseen Yousaf and Imran Hussain of The Elixir Pharmacy Group, and those who were present who had made written representations to attend before them. They were: Yaseen Yousaf, representing The Elixir Pharmacy Group Imran Hussain, assisting in the presentation of the application Donald Mackinnon on behalf of Mackenzie & Co Chemists, objector Mohammed J Iqbal on behalf of Southside Pharmacy, objector Peter Tinkler on behalf of Royal Mile Pharmacy, objector 8. The Chairman explained the procedure that would be followed and no person present objected. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 12. The Committee noted that the applicant had defined the neighbourhood in their written submission as Holyrood which was outlined on a map previously submitted and labelled “Appendix B”. 13. The applicant clarified in his oral submission that the neighbourhood could be defined as: North: St Mary’s Street East: Holyrood Road West: Cowgate South: Pleasance Neighbourhood – Interested Parties 14. In his written submission, Mr Peter Tinkler of Royal Mile Pharmacy expressed his disagreement with the neighbourhood as defined by the applicant. He stated that the Dumbiedykes housing area is within the Old Town of Edinburgh which is a much larger area. He stated in his oral submission that the proposed premises are on the boundary of the City Centre neighbourhood as defined by Edinburgh Neighbourhood Partnership and that the majority of the Holyrood/Dumbiedykes housing is in the South Central Area. 15. In his oral submission, Mr Donald Mackinnon of Mackenzie & Co Chemists stated that it was his belief that the applicant had not researched the defined neighbourhood in any great depth but had drawn much of their information from Google maps and government neighbourhood statistics which had led to several inaccuracies in their application. He also stated that the applicants had used Data Zone Profiles which offer statistics down to street level which were not representative of a neighbourhood given that the profiles used only covered 1 or 2 streets covered by a postcode. He confirmed that the neighbourhood should extend to South Bridge and St Leonard’s heading towards Newington. He stated that the he found the definition of the neighbourhood as defined by the applicant confusing as the map he had provided did not cover all of Dumbiedykes and Viewcraig and that the proposed pharmacy location was right on the edge of the defined neighbourhood. 16. In his oral submission, Mr Iqbal of Southside Pharmacy agreed that the South Central area encompasses Dumbiedykes and that the proposed pharmacy location was outside the neighbourhood of Dumbiedykes. Adequacy of Existing Pharmaceutical Services and Necessity or Desirability - Applicant 17. The applicant explained that Dumbiedykes is a housing estate of over 1100 residents in Central Edinburgh with high levels of poverty and unemployment, lack of social cohesion, poor health and widespread morbidity. This situation has worsened in the past decade. 18. The applicant stated that many surveys and reports have been carried out on the Dumbiedykes neighbourhood and one that has been carried out a number of times had been compiled by Dr Murray of Edinburgh University. Results from these had shown that complaints were common regarding the environment which included steep hills and difficult steps. He highlighted that Dumbiedykes had a higher than average number of residents over the age of 50 and that these people would have the greatest difficulties with geographical problems. 19. He stated that perceived causes of ill health included unemployment, stress, dampness, poor diet, eating habits and smoking. He also stated that drug misuse among some younger people and social isolation among elderly people were also thought to be problems as well as a lack of health education. 20. The applicant stated that amongst the most important health needs identified were for a bus route into the estate which would allow services to be accessed much easier. He explained that since the 1995 report was published and followed up in 2006, transport services had been further cut due to a lack of funding which made it increasingly difficult for residents to access services in this neglected neighbourhood. 21. He provided information from the Murray report regarding the population of Dumbiedykes in relation to age, social disadvantage, owned housing, car ownership and long term illness in relation to Lothian as a whole. 22. The applicant also stated that census data revealed high levels of HIV infection or drug misuse and single parents. 23. He highlighted that the proposed pharmacy would provide a needle exchange service which would be a boost to the community as the only other pharmacy in the area offering this service was at Boots The Chemists at Shandwick Place which was some distance away. 24. The applicant had provided copies of letters of support for a new pharmacy in Dumbiedykes from local MPs and MSPs which were circulated to the committee and objectors at the start of the meeting. 25. He stated that it was not his intention to leapfrog other pharmacies in the area but simply to enhance the services already provided which would be of benefit to the neighbourhood. 26. When asked by Mr Tinkler for the date of the Murray Report from which he had produced his date, the applicant confirmed that it was the 2006 report. 27.

Load more