The purpose of the Health Board’s Pharmaceutical Care Services Plan is to provide additional information on services currently available.
When fully developed the plan should identify if there are any localities within the Health Board where pharmacy services might need to be improved. The Board is unable to analyse current health data sufficiently to be able to make this statement currently.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st October 2014.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood was currently inadequate.
It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 7th December 2006.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of additional pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical service in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names are included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 17th April 2003
That the granting of the application was desirable, though not necessary, to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at Queen Street Station, Dundas Street, Glasgow, G1 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th November 2003.
That the granting of the application was desirable, though not necessary, to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at Queen Street Station, Dundas Street, Glasgow, G1 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th June 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 11th December 2012.
Having regard to the overall services provided by the existing contractors within the vicinity of the proposed pharmacy, the number of prescriptions dispensed by those contractors in the preceding 12 months, and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, the committee agreed that the neighbourhood was currently adequately served.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel remitted back to the PPC.
Re-heard by the PPC on the 31st October 2013
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st June 2004.
In a unanimous decision, the Committee agreed that the granting of the application was neither necessary or desirable, to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 81 St George’s Road, Charing Cross, Glasgow, G3 6JA for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused. The Committee noted there existed an adequate pharmaceutical service within the area, with three pharmacies located in the defined neighbourhood and fourteen within a one mile radius. The Committee noted that the pharmacies located in the defined neighbourhood offered Supervised Methadone Administration Scheme, Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy and Advice to Nursing Home services and that the overall level of service provide by pharmacies was already adequate.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th September 2012.
Having regard to the overall services provided by the existing contractors within the vicinity of the proposed pharmacy, the number of prescriptions dispensed by those contractors in the preceding 12 months, and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, the committee agreed that the neighbourhood was currently adequately served.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 3rd June 2013.
Having regard to the overall services provided by the existing contractors within the vicinity of the proposed pharmacy, the number of prescriptions dispensed by those contractors in the preceding 12 months, and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, the committee agreed that the neighbourhood was currently adequately served. There was room for improvement in the marketing and communication of the availability of translation services, which was being addressed, but the service was there and was being provided.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were 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 were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 10th April 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 16th October 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st September 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances. it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th September 2002.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 1066 Argyle Street, Glasgow G3.8 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th February 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 1056 Argyle Street, Glasgow G3.8 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 2nd May 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 8th August 2007.
The PPC agreed to postpone consideration of the application from Mr A Manzoor and Ms Amina al-Adhami until the National Appeals Panel had made a determination on LG Pharmacy Ltd’s application.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 16th October 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 26th February 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 16th December 2009
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 30th August 2017.
In considering the application, the Committee took account of all relevant factors concerning neighbourhood and adequacy of existing pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located, in terms of Regulation 5(10).
It also took account of all information available to it, which was relevant to the application. For the reasons set out in the minute, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood was adequate, given the level of service currently being provided by existing pharmacy contractors located outwith the neighbourhood. It was therefore neither necessary nor desirable to grant the application. It was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th October 2000
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at Unit 12, 42-44 New City Road, Glasgow G4.9 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 8th August 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 28th September 2019.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out in the minute, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 10.7-10.11 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 6th January 2011.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the majority decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th April 2012.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
Remitted back to board
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 28th November 2012.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeal Panel Decision, remitted back to the Board.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th September 2013.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for reasons set in the minute, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, was currently adequate. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st February 2005.
The Committee agreed that the granting of the application was not necessary. A majority decision by the Committee members agreed that the granting of the application was highly desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 34 Bridge Street, Glasgow, G5 9HU for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 6th March 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 15th February 2001.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 668 Eglinton Street, Glasgow G5.9 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 15th February 2001.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 668 Eglinton Street, Glasgow G5.9 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th September 2001.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 668 Eglinton Street, Glasgow G5.9 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 21st November 2002.
That decision on the application be deferred, and an oral hearing arranged. Additionally, that further supplementary information be made available to the Committee for their next meeting.
Deferred and an oral hearing scheduled.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 23rd January 2003.
It was a majority decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th September 2003.
In the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th August 2005.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was neither necessary nor desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical service in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names are included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the majority decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th June 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 672 Eglinton Street, Glasgow G5.9 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 29th March 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 10th January 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 2nd April 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 26th March 2009.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th October 2000.
Deferred and an oral hearing scheduled.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 28th November 2000.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 590/592 Eglinton Street, Glasgow, G5 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 10th June 2022.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out in the minute, it was the view of the PPC that the provision of pharmaceutical services to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 10- 10.22 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to had an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 15th June 2000.
That the granting of the application was desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at Unit 5 West End Retail Park, Crow Road, Glasgow for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 21st June 2001.
That the granting of the application was desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at Unit 5 West End Retail Park, Crow Road, Glasgow for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
Pharmacy Practices Committee Minute (PPC/INCL12/2005)
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th October 2005.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical service in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names are included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 17th November 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 50 Crow Road, Glasgow G11.7 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th April 2000.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 33/35 Bank Street, Glasgow for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 15th June 2000.
That the granting of the application was neither necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 1 Kirklee Road, Glasgow for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be not granted.
Pharmacy Practices Committee Minute (PPC/INCL06/2000)
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th October 2000.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 156 Dorchester Avenue, Glasgow G12.0 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th August 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 31st March 2010.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 7th April 2011.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 14th March 2013.
Having regard to the overall services provided by the existing contractors within the vicinity of the proposed pharmacy, the number of prescriptions dispensed by those contractors in the preceding 12 months, and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, the committee agreed that the neighbourhood was currently adequately served.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicants were 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 were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 27th April 2022.
In determining this application, the PPC was required to take into account all relevant factors concerning the definition of the neighbourhood served and the adequacy of existing pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in the context of Regulation 5(10).
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the PPC that the provision of pharmaceutical services to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 10- 10.15 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to had an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 12th May 2016 (Re-sit on the 28th November 2016).
Taking into account all of the information available, and for reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraph 7.2 in PPC/INCL03/2016) and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 10th January 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 24th May 2001.
That the granting of the application was necessary and desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 227 Wallacewell Road, Glasgow G21.3 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 24th January 2002.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at Tesco Stores Ltd, St Rollox Business Park, Cobden Road, Glasgow G21.1 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th February 2006.
That determination of C&A Fergusson’s application be deferred until the April meeting or until such times as the Committee had received and had the opportunity to consider guidance from Central Legal Office in relation to this issue.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th June 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the Contractor Services adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 194 Petershill Road, Glasgow G21.4 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th October 2005.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 641 Hawthorn Street, Glasgow G22.6 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th June 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 641 Hawthorn Street, Glasgow G22.6 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 15th February 2001.
That consideration of the application be deferred until clarification is sought regarding the leasing of the premises.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 24th May 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 24th May 2001.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 194 Fernbank Street, Glasgow G22.6 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 29th August 2016.
In considering this application, the Committee was required to take into account all relevant factors concerning the definition of the neighbourhood served and the adequacy of existing pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in the context of Regulation 5(10).
Taking into account all of the information available, and for reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraph 7.6 of PPC/INCL05/2016) and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 9th February 2022.
In determining this application, the PPC was required to take into account all relevant factors concerning the definition of the neighbourhood served and the adequacy of existing pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in the context of Regulation 5(10).
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the PPC that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 10- 10.15 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to had an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 6th October 2017.
In considering the application, the Committee took account of all relevant factors concerning neighbourhood and adequacy of existing pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located, in terms of Regulation 5(10).
It also took account of all information available to it, which was relevant to the application. For the reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services to the neighbourhood was adequate, given the level of service currently being provided by existing pharmacy contractors located outwith the neighbourhood. It was therefore neither necessary nor desirable to grant the application. It was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st October 2014.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood was currently inadequate.
It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 4th August 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th May 2016.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, the Committee was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at 15 Barrland Street, Glasgow, G41 1QH was not necessary or 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, in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the Committee that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th March 2003.
The Committee deferred this application for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list on the basis that Mr John Gilbride had appealed against the PPC’s decision of 23 January 2003 not to grant a pharmaceutical contract at 668 Eglinton Street, Glasgow. The Committee therefore decided to defer Mrs Anderson’s application until the National Appeal Panel had decided on Mr Gilbride’s case.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 24th November 2011.
Having regard to the overall services provided by the existing contractors within the vicinity of the proposed pharmacy, the number of prescriptions dispensed by those contractors in the preceding 12 months, and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, the committee agreed that the neighbourhood was currently adequately served. The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List. In the circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st June 2004.
In a majority decision (three votes to one) the Committee agreed that the granting of the application was desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 11 Fieldhead Square, Auldhouse, Glasgow, G43 1HL for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted. The Committee felt that the granting of this contract was desirable, though not necessary as no other pharmacies exist within the defined neighbourhood. The Committee also felt that the granting of this contract would not have a detrimental effect on the other pharmaceutical contractors in the area.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th September 2002.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 10 MacLaren Place, Glasgow G44.3 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th March 2003.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 3 Kennishead Road, Thornliebank, Glasgow, G46 8NY for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 7th June 2005.
In summary, the Committee concluded that the granting of an additional NHS contract for the premises to be situated at 606-608 Boydestone Road, Carnwadric, Glasgow G46.8, was not necessary or desirable in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in which the premises were situated.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 9th March 2010.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was necessary and 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 29th April 2009.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 12th March 2020.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 12.1 – 12.10 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 12th March 2020.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 22nd November 2006.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was necessary and desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical service in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names are included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 30th January 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was neither necessary or desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical service in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names are included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 20th January 2011.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 9th September 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 8th August 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 911 Darnley Mains Road, Glasgow G53.7 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 24th January 2002.
That the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 205 Hamilton Road, Glasgow G72.7 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th April 2023.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out within the minute, it was the view of the PPC that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 10- 10.19 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to had an additional pharmacy.
It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
Currently with National Appeals Panel
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 5th April 2005.
By unanimous decision, the Committee agreed that the granting of the application was neither necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 7/9 Rannoch Drive Glasgow G61.2 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 5th April 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 2b Monreith Avenue, Glasgow G61.1 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
Following the National Appeal Panel Decision, the decision was deferred back to the PPC.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 6th December 2006.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was neither necessary nor desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical service in the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names are included in the Pharmaceutical List and in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
Following a 2nd National Appeal Panel Decision, the decision was deferred back to the PPC.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 24th May 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 21st September 2000.
The PPC decided that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises, and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care Trust’s Pharmaceutical List at 165 Milngavie Road, Glasgow G61.2 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
No appeal received; File closed
Pharmacy Practices Committee meeting cancelled on the 23rd August 2010.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 27th October 2010.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 4th November 2010.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st February 2005.
The Committee unanimously agreed that the granting of the application was necessary and desirable, to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 63-65 Main Street, Torrance, G64 4EL, for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th June 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was necessary, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at Twechar Healthy Living & Enterprise Centre, Unit 1AZ, St John’s Way, Main Street, Twechar, Glasgow G65.5 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 5th April 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was necessary and desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 10 Newdyke Road, Glasgow G66.2 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th January 2023.
The Committee concluded that there was no evidence provided to demonstrate any inadequacy of the existing pharmaceutical services to the defined neighbourhood.
In accordance with the procedure on applications contained within Paragraph 6, Schedule 4 of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, as amended, the Committee, for the reasons set out in the attached document, considered that the pharmaceutical service into the neighbourhood to be adequate.
Accordingly, the decision of the Committee was unanimous that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises was neither necessary nor desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services within the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the pharmaceutical list, and accordingly the application was rejected. This decision was made subject to the right of appeal as specified in Paragraph 4.1, Regulations 2009, as amended.
Appeal currently with the National Appeals Panel.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 17th February 2011.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st June 2004.
That the granting of the application was necessary to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Primary Care NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 6 Campsie Road, Milton of Campsie, Glasgow, G66 8EA for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th September 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 27th November 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st September 2021.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the PPC that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 13 – 13.18 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy.
It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 26th October 2009.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was necessary and 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed.
Rowlands Pharmacy
Address: Unit 2, Greenlaw Village, Newton Mearns, G77 6NP
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 21st April 2011.
The PPC were satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it were the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 23rd October 2012.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the Greenlaw Village premises of the Applicant was necessary in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services within the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the Pharmaceutical List and in these circumstances it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be approved.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 6th March 2008
The Committee requested that an oral hearing of the application be arranged.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 4th April 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 2nd March 2007.
The Pharmacy Practices Committee suspended this meeting.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 4th July 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 21st March 2002.
It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 27th October 2008
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. Reheard by the PPC on the 27th July 2009.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 27th July 2009
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 1st June 2004.
In a unanimous decision, the Committee agreed that the granting of the application was desirable, though not necessary, to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 80 Dumbarton Road, Duntocher, West Dunbartonshire, G81 1UG for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted as the pharmacy would serve the area of Duntocher and would not have a detrimental effect on the pharmacy located at Hardgate Cross in Clydebank. They also considered that the application be desirable as there were no other pharmacies located within the defined neighbourhood and the pharmacy users would find the new pharmacy easily accessible without the barrier of the busy road and junction located at Hardgate Cross.
National Appeals Panel overturned the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 7th December 2004.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn prior to the meeting. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 26th September 2019.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraph 12.8 above) and the level of service provided by those contractors to the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 30th June 2017.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraph 12.8) and the level of service provided by the contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 13th June 2006.
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was not necessary or desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde’s Pharmaceutical List at 258 Faifley Road, Faifley, Glasgow G81.5 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 5th October 2004.
In a unanimous decision, the Committee agreed that the granting of the application was neither necessary or desirable to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 290 Faifley Road, Faifley, G81 5EY for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 5th May 2011
The PPC were satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant were not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it were the majority decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 18th August 2005
The Committee agreed by unanimous decision that the granting of the application was desirable, in order to secure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood of the proposed premises and accordingly that the application seeking inclusion in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s Pharmaceutical List at 1 Duntiglennan Road, Glasgow G81.6 for the provision of general pharmaceutical services be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 21st November 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was necessary 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be granted.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the***.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was necessary and desirable in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood. I., It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be approved.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 30th April 2008.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 12th April 2016.
The committee was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 21st July 2021.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 10.7-10.11 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was adequate and, therefore, it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the Application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Address: 4 Blackford Road, Pailsey PA2 7EN
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 19th March 2018.
Taking into account all of the information available, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 17.4-17.8 in PPC/INCL01/2018) and the level of service provided by the contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy. It was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 11th September 2023
The Committee considered whether granting this Application was necessary in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services in and to the Neighbourhood. The Committee agreed that it was necessary and desirable to grant the Application in order to secure adequate provision of pharmaceutical services within the neighbourhood in which the premises were located by persons whose names were included in the pharmaceutical list, and accordingly the Application was granted. This decision was made subject to the right of appeal as specified in Paragraph 4.1, Regulations 2009, as amended.
23 Greenock Road, Bishopton PA7 5JN
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 27TH October 2021.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the PPC that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or to the neighbourhood (as defined by it in Paragraphs 10- 10.19 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and it was neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy.
It was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
No appeal received; File closed.
19 Greenock Road, Bishopton PA7 5JW
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 30th March 2016.
The Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at Unit 3, 19 Greenock Road, Bishopton, PA7 5JW was not necessary or 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 in the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee (PPC) that the application be refused.
National Appeals Panel upheld the PPC decision. File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the ***.
PA14 5EH – Dears Pharmacy, 37 Church Street, Port Glasgow
Last submission date for application was 24th July 2017, No application received; therefore file was closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 7th February 2020.
Taking into account all of the information available, and for the reasons set out above, it was the view of the Committee that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or to the neighbourhood (as defined in Paragraphs 10.7-10.11 above) and the level of service provided by the existing contractors in the neighbourhood, was currently adequate and that it was therefore neither necessary nor desirable to have an additional pharmacy at the proposed premises. It was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received, File closed.
Heard by the Pharmacy Practices Committee on the 14th December 2007.
The PPC was satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services at the premises of the Applicant was not necessary or 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. In the circumstances, it was the unanimous decision of the PPC that the application be refused.
No appeal received, File closed.
If you are interested in opening a new pharmacy in the community, please familiarise yourself with the current Regulations and associated documents using the links below.
If you require further information on the processes involved, please contact the Community Pharmacy Development Team at cpdt@ggc.scot.nhs.uk, or call Monday to Friday, 9.00am to 5.00pm 0141 201 6041 / 0141 201 6054.
Mr Ramis Qureshi, Unit 476, 32 Elmfoot Grove, Glasgow G5 0LR
We support people joining our various networks, and steering and strategy groups, on a range of topics. We aren’t always recruiting people to join groups, but we’re always happy to hear from people who want to take part.
Find out who we’re looking for and examples of our involvement groups and networks below.
We’re keen to involve people interested in:
Become part of this growing network by signing up here to make sure you’re fully informed of the work going on across your board. Read how you can help shape the future.
Our Stakeholder Reference Group includes patients, carers, community group members, as well as third sector representatives.
The Group guides how we best communicate and engage about our work. It also:
Unfortunately, we’re not currently recruiting for our Stakeholder Reference Group. Join our Involving People Network for future updates on involvement groups and networks.
Our public involvement resources help staff to engage with patients, relatives, carers and local communities. This includes supporting teams to collect patient feedback, and involve people in improving and developing services.
We will regularly update our list of feedback and engagement resources with new content.
For further support, please contact Patient Experience and Public Involvement (PEPI) using the online form.
For more information about the resources, please email PEPI at Public.Involvement@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
No experience is required.
This resource provides:
Experience is required – please contact the PEPI team.
This resource provides:
Experience is required – please contact the PEPI team.
This resource provides:
Experience is recommended – please contact the PEPI Team.
This resource provides:
Experience is required – please contact the PEPI team.
This resource provides:
Experience is required – please contact the PEPI Team.
This resource provides:
Experience is required – please contact the PEPI Team.
This resource provides:
Experience is required – please contact the PEPI Team.
This resource provides:
Experience is required – please contact the PEPI Team.
This resource provides:
Experience is recommended – please contact the PEPI Team.
We produce a yearly report about your feedback, comments, complaints and concerns. These reports include the number of comments we receive and examples of feedback resulting in change and improvement.
We’re committed to informing and involving you whenever we make changes. You can help to develop your care by taking part in our engagement and consultations. If you would like to suggest a community group, we could engage with or topic you would like to hear us deliver sessions on then please email us at public.involvement@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.
If you’ve used any of our service and would like to share your personal experience, you can do so on Care Opinion.
Keep up to date with the very latest developments in NHS services in Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
Every Thursday we send out an update on the major news stories we have shared with the media and across our social media channels.
You can become a part of this growing network by signing up here to make sure you’re fully informed of the work going on across your board.
We won’t pass your details on to any third parties and we won’t bombard your email in box either. You’ll receive a clear and concise email once a week.
We engaged with patients via the NHSGGC Involving People Network to better understand their experiences of medicines and prescribing. These experiences have helped to influence the development of new medicines approaches in NHSGGC.
Services to help people with their mental health are being redesigned to enable us to respond and better support people experiencing mental illness. Click the button below to share your experience of Mental Health services in NHSGGC.
We are undertaking a programme of engagement to ensure that the way in which we deliver GP Out of Hours services can take account of the feedback and experiences of our patients, communities and wider public. Click the button below to learn more about how you can get involved.
If you are interested in opening a New Pharmacy in the community, please familiarise yourself with the current Regulations and associated documents using the button found below.
Use the buttons below to learn more about previous engagement, consultation and involvement activities.
We engaged with patients accessing A&E services in NHSGGC over a weeks period using text message surveys. These experiences have helped NHSGGC understand how people access A&E, their knowledge of alternative services and how we can better raise awareness of these alternatives.
We engaged with women using a mix of survey and interview approaches, this helped ensure we reached a wide range of maternity service users. These experiences are helping shape how we deliver maternity services.
The NHSGGC Cystic Fibrosis Team worked to gather feedback about peoples’ experience of, and contact with the CF team during Covid, aiming to listen and learn from their feedback and use it to review, inform and improve the service going forward.
This report summarises the responses to a patient experience questionnaire carried out by the Complex Mesh Surgical Service in June 2022.
We engaged with patients via the NHSGGC Involving People Network to better understand their experiences of medicines and prescribing. These experiences have helped to influence the development of new medicines approaches in NHSGGC.
We proposed to move to an ambulatory model of care at the Centre for Integrative Care.
We proposed to move midwife led birthing services from the Inverclyde Community Maternity Unit to the Royal Alexandra Hospital.
We proposed to move midwife led birthing services from the Vale of Leven Community Maternity Unit to the Royal Alexandra Hospital.
We proposed to merge cleft surgical services in Scotland into a single site in Glasgow.
We proposed to improve Older People’s services in North West Glasgow.
We proposed to move the Primary Care Emergency Centre from Drumchapel Hospital to Gartnavel General Hospital.
We proposed to improve our rehabilitation services for older people in the North East of Glasgow and East Dunbartonshire.
The Glasgow City Integration Joint Board considered proposals to review minor injuries services for West Glasgow.
We proposed to move inpatient paediatric services from the Royal Alexandra Hospital to the Royal Hospital for Children.
We design and deliver services by listening to the people receiving our care. Your views and experiences inform both the way we work and the quality of that work.
We offer you a number of ways to have your say, from one-off surveys, to longer term participation in networks. This allows us to hear from a range of voices, gather new ideas and learn about what’s important to you.
You can help make a difference by:
Interested in learning about why we involve people? Check out the local and national guidance below.
This is our long term approach to achieving effective communications and engagement with all our partners and stakeholders.
These reports have been developed by the Patient Experience Public Involvement (PEPI) Team to provide an overview of the range of stakeholder engagement and involvement occurring across NHSGGC. The reports capture and celebrate the range of work carried out by teams across NHSGGC to involve our stakeholders in the delivery, design and improvement of services.
The Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) developed this guidance. It supports greater collaboration between those making decisions about care services, those delivering services, and people who are affected.
Your feedback helps us build on what works well and improve what could be better.
We encourage sharing feedback with staff delivering care, but offer various other ways for you to tell your story. It’s important to us that you can share your feedback about NHSGGC at a time and place you feel comfortable.
You can provide anonymous feedback, about any of our services, using the Care Opinion form or calling 0800 122 3135.
Your feedback will be shared with our services and you will receive a response on Care Opinion.
You can share your feedback about NHSGGC through our online feedback form. You won’t receive a response to your feedback; however, your comments will help drive change and improvement.
As with the above feedback options the following ways to share your story are not able to help with clinical issues or appointments directly, and you should always reach out to your Doctor, Nurse or other Health Professional in the first instance. You can find contact information for clinical issues or appointments by calling the hospital switchboard.
Other methods for patients, relatives, carers and their loved ones to tell their story:
The Patient Advice and Support Service (PASS) offers free advice and support to all NHS Scotland patients. You can get in touch with PASS through their online contact form or by calling 0800 917 2127.
PASS will help you:
If you are unable to use the above feedback forms or have questions about sharing feedback, email: PatientExperience@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.
Keep up to date with the very latest developments in NHS services in Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
Every Thursday we send out an update on the major news stories we have shared with the media and across our social media channels.
Over 50,000 local residents are already enjoying this direct means of contact. You can become a part of this growing network by signing up here to make sure you’re fully informed of the work going on across your board.
We won’t pass your details on to any third parties and we won’t bombard your email in box either. You’ll receive a clear and concise email once a week.
You can also provide feedback about our care through Care Opinion. This provides an anonymous way to share your story with staff and other patients. Find more ways to share your experience in our feedback section here.
