Is THIS Democracy?

General News | Posted on March 8th, 2010 17 Comments »

Is this democracy?

The approval by Perth and Kinross Council’s Development Control Committee, by a vote of eight to four, for the application to build 22 flats on the curling rink site in Pitlochry must be a low point for democracy in the area.  As one of the 146 objectors, I attended and listened to the Committee’s deliberations.  On several preceding applications, discussions had been detailed, thoughtful and often probing – even to the extent of asking one farmer, who was applying to convert a listed steading to housing, for evidence that dairy farming didn’t make money!  Hearing these, and knowing that similar levels of investigation would expose major problems with the shoddy curling rink flats proposal, I was quite hopeful. In the event, we were cut short in our submission, by draconian time-keeping which had not applied to other cases, and most of the Councillors (with the notable exception of local Conservative, Cllr Ian Campbell) seemed completely disinterested in following up on major issues such as lack of provision for any outdoor space for children; the impact on the edge of a conservation area and the contradictions with prominent government and local authority policies.   The agent for the developer, Uplands Developments Ltd., and the planning officer, Nick Brian, treated the few questions from Councillors with contempt.  Why wasn’t there any provision for children?  Because it wasn’t expected that occupants would be children but would be elderly.  This was despite officials and others having constantly said that this development had to go ahead because families badly need affordable housing (which is indisputable).  “Why couldn’t a pavement be provided around the development to improve the road safety?”  Because Pitlochry has a unique character of not having pavements, but of stone walls built right alongside the road.  “Why couldn’t the current, decades-old short-cut through the site be left open to allow a safer path for schoolchildren?”  Because they would be stepping straight out onto a road. (because the development won’t provide a pavement).  I’m sure an ironic chuckle was had when that Catch 22 was first dreamed up.  “Why wasn’t Historic Scotland consulted about the impact on the conservation area”.  Mr Brian didn’t think they’d thank him for consulting them about every development on the edge of a conservation site (despite the very specific wording in the guidance, read out by Cllr Campbell, about the need for consideration of impact from neighbouring sites).  The other Highland Perthshire Councillor present, Ken Lyall, suggested that children could nip down over the main road to the recreation ground to play and then abstained. 

As soon as they could possibly get it over with, a vote was taken which had all the hallmarks of being a pre-arranged vote on Party lines – SNP and Lib Dems voting for it.    I await the result of Freedom of Information requests with interest, to discover the background to this extra-ordinary performance.  Uplands Development have already moved on to their next Applications in Pitlochry - knocking down two buildings in the town centre conservation area - previously the Bank House and the Bakers Oven - and putting up a hotel, flats and retail units. However, perhaps the vote in the Council Committee was totally kosher, and perhaps the next part of Uplands Developments masterplan for Pitlochry will not go through on the nod.

 Highland Perthshire – under threat

Pitlochry’s unique town centre; the Birks of Aberfeldy; Dall, Rannoch; Griffin and Calliachar wind developments; the 400kV Beauly-Denny electricity transmission line passing down east of Schiehallion and on through Glen Quaich.  A roll-call of stunning places under threat.  They may not all mean something to you but, for most residents of Highland Perthshire, almost certainly some of them will.  Those of us who care must act now.  Thousands of people have made representation against these planning proposals.  Those applications already decided suggest that it is unlikely that any of those people will be heard.  For each development, we’re given spurious reasons why those of us raising voices in protest are wrong-headed, selfish, NIMBYs and standing in the way of progress and “sustainable economic growth.”  I don’t mind being called a NIMBY – if I don’t care about my own backyard, the chances of me caring for someone else’s is remote.  Don’t wait until there’s an Application to destroy a part of Highland Perthshire that you love.  If you’ve never paid any attention to planning before, assuming that you’ll get fair warning if something’s coming your way, beware. 

 

A new planning system is currently being rolled out.  The TAYplan is an over-arching plan for Tayside, Angus, North Fife and Perth and Kinross that will detail what type of development is suitable for each and every area within it.  If your area is zoned for something you think will be detrimental to the area, it will be too late to object when the Application comes forward.  You need to get involved in the consultation process as the plan is written.  If enough of us get involved, who knows – we might just be listened to.

 

Helen McDade

Pitlochry Curling Rink - P&K Decision

General News | Posted on February 16th, 2010 11 Comments »

It is ironic that in a week where Highland Perthshire has a young woman, Eve Muirhead, leading a serious Olympic challenge in the Ladies Curling, Perth and Kinross Council are considering a planning application to knock down the curling rink in Pitlochry where Eve was able to train.  Instead, Pitlochry is being offered the dubious privilege of yet another block of 22 flats, with no gardens or communal “greenspace”. 

A key question which Councillors should consider is what sporting provision does the Council intend to provide in the Pitlochry area to replace this facility and address the total inadequacy which currently exists?  Young people in Pitlochry seem to be expected to travel between 15 (Aberfeldy) and 25 (Perth) miles to get to sports facilities, e.g. curling and swimming.

 

The flats planned are of a totally inappropriate design for a small town setting and unsuitable for families - which is the type of accommodation badly needed in the area.

If the Council Development Control Committee give consideration to their Policies on sustainable development and amenity provision, they should turn down this change of use from sports facility to housing.  Then, perhaps, the Council could give consideration to what provision it is going to make in this area – joining with the residents to keep Pitlochry as a place which people want to live in,

 

Helen McDade

Birks Hydro Alarm

General News | Posted on November 30th, 2009 69 Comments »

Seeing the exhibition/open day for the Birks Hydro scheme confirmed my doubts about the proposal. When the photos for 1m3/sec and 0.24m3/sec (very close to ‘before’ and ‘after’ at maximum abstraction) were put side by side, it was an overwhelming demonstration of the negative effect the scheme will have on the visual impact (and no doubt the ecology) of the Birks.

While the top falls may still be impressive ‘after’, it is beyond doubt that less visitors will come to the town to see the Birks over a period of time with a serious negative impact on our already very fragile economy. Those who see a diminished Birks will be less likely to come back and less likely to tell others how impressive it was.I understand that the photographs we saw have only recently been taken - I cannot understand how the scheme was approved by Planning without the committee demanding/seeing similar evidence. Was any independent professional report prepared before the planning approval?Another factor came to my attention on Friday. Until now all the photographs and a lot of the discussion has centred on the top falls. On Friday I visited the Birks with family members and one of them said to me that what made the Birks special wasn’t just the (impressive) top falls but the whole experience of an hour long walk up alongside a series of smaller falls and caterracts leading to the top falls. I think that if water levels are cut in the manner allowed for in the CAR licence, the visual impact will be even more damaging in the lower sections.

I have recently seen the SEPA methodology and I believe the approach of this to be flawed - to say in effect that there are other ‘similar’ sights around and then use a comparison of visitor numbers between the Birks and The Hermitage or Falls of Bruar to say the Birks is of ‘low’ importance is totally spurious. 1) The Birks is not on the A9 - it doesn’t even have a ‘brown sign’ 2) The other sights are simply not in AberfeldyWe all want to see more renewable energy but that should not mean ‘carte blanche’ to devastate every natural jewel in our countryside. Especially when the scheme is such a small one in the scheme of things. I understand the total of approved renewables in Perthshire is some 700mw, whereas the Birks is around 1mw - just over 0.1%.The proposed ‘rent’ money - £10,000, £20,000 or £50,000 or whatever is offered to the community - should not be the issue. The Birks was gifted to the community and should not be treated as an asset to be negotiated with a developer, and certainly not one offering sums that are tiny (‘glass beads for the natives’) compared with the huge profits to be made.As the owner of a local business who has invested heavily in the local economy and now employs 15 full-time staff in a business that draws heavily on visitors, both tourists and more local ‘visitors’ I strongly urge the  Common Good Fund councillors to act for the ‘Common Good’ of the people of Aberfeldy on and reject the scheme by whatever means is appropriate at this stage - ie refusing to grant a lease.  Kevin RamageEast Cottage, Tullicrow, Aberfeldy 

Rejection of criticism by Pitlochry Community Council

General News | Posted on November 17th, 2009 18 Comments »

I read the article “Pitlochry Community Council:  A Failure of Duty” on page 8 of your November edition, which contains such inaccuracies and defamatory comments that I feel compelled to reply on behalf of the Pitlochry and Moulin Community Council and set the record straight.

 

The person referred to as having a personal interest in the Curling Rink has never ever been asked to step aside, and has always declared an interest where appropriate, until at the August 19th meeting it was declared that the directorship and shareholding had been relinquished. Much to the dismay of the members of RAID who came to the meeting, and yes they did walk out after the official stance of the Community Council was read out, a fact that was best left out of the minutes so their unreasonable behaviour went unrecorded.

 

The development has always been placed in the Planning report, which is nearly always around the middle of the agenda. I put the development at the end of my report so that any pertinent matter could be raised and discussed properly. What is meant by interruption to Mr Bean’s visit I am at a loss to fathom, the Community Council visited Perth to put forward the case for him to visit, he considered our request and accepted. We shall be ever grateful to him for doing so, and the minute of his discussions took up a whole page in the August edition of News Round North!

 

To make comparison with other work the Community Council carries out, and say that “serious concerns that affect so many” are not as important, is cheap. What is important to one person may be far less important to another, and the Community Council has to represent 100% of the community of Pitlochry not just the 7% or so members of a local pressure group.

 

Affordable housing is important for the town. There is government policy laid down, fully supported by P&K Council as to the quantity, design and build quality of this type of housing, the Community Council can do nothing to change that, what it can do, and has been doing is to see that what is proposed for the town is fair and equitable and that local people get priority to what is available.

 This squabbling however must stop, as we have a far, far bigger battle to face, which will take a united Pitlochry to win.    J R PearsonPitlochry & Moulin Community Council

Good Tunes - Bizarre Gig

General News | Posted on October 26th, 2009 2 Comments »

Delighted to get tickets for the Dan Lyth and Foy Vance gig at the Courtyard in Kenmore (23 Oct), we headed out for a night of music and banter with friends after a hard week of work and the beginning of winter.  Looking forward to a good night out in a local venue with something a bit different; in an area which can struggle to draw in new and interesting acts.

 

The night seemed to struggle to get started, but eventually Dan Lyth and band joined the stage and once the volume levels were adjusted the music was well worth the wait, nice tunes, good sound, looking like the perfect start – they had a kind of ‘Belle and Sebastian’ feel too them. 

After a set of an hour or so, we were ready for Foy’s headline appearance; he took the stage to get started – finally (9.45ish) getting into it.

At this point the gig took a turn to the bizarre and after the 3rd plug for the Temple Gallery Foy got started with his set – great tunes, great voice, but why do I hear Shushing, shhh, shhh! I thought we were in a bar, at a gig, having a good time!

 

The shushing turned to another ‘wee’ announcement as we were asked to keep the chatting to a minimum as it was not helping the sound, or it was distracting or even off-putting. Talkative guests were told that, if they wanted to enjoy each other’s company they could move to the other bar, around the corner, and chat there away from the music we came to see.

 

This was backed up by the bar staff telling us that – “we’re not serving while he’s playing – the chat is distracting”; Foy even paused for a moment to tell those of us who were having the crack to “Shut up!” – we hadn’t realised there were rules in place for the enjoyment of music and company on a night out – especially in Scotland, the home of good times.

 

Don’t get me wrong – the music when played - was great, Dan Lyth are a band I will be looking to hear more of, Foy seems to be a fine musician with a great sound and style – maybe just a bit uptight.

 What a bizarre gig.  Music Lover 

Academy Traffic Chaos

General News | Posted on October 23rd, 2009 1 Comment »

Looking into my back garden the other evening my gaze focused eastwards at the large illuminated silhouette overshadowing my view.  It was the partially-built new Breadalbane campus all lit up in the dark.  I thought how lucky I was not to be living in Alma Avenue in the shadow of this huge building which is now an ugly backdrop not only for them but for anyone living in the vicinity and, indeed, the village as a whole as it even looks an eyesore from the other side of the River Tay.  Was no thought given to the impact such a large building would have on this, quiet attractive residential area.  Congratulations P&K for a not-very-well-thought-out design…. but then, as long as it’s not in their back garden.Residents at this west end of town who have had to put up with recent heavy, continuous plant traffic while the temporary school was being built, and with the school bus chaos twice a day, now have to contend with school staff and school run mums vying for places on Kenmore Street and Taybridge Drive, some of whom park on dangerous corners blocking safe pull-out views at the mini roundabout and the Alma Avenue junction.  This extra chaos twice a day, coupled with the many vehicles that speed down through the mini roundabout oblivious to the fact that they have to stop to let traffic out from the right, is an accident waiting to happen. Let us hope, if it eventually happens, it does not involve a child. Perhaps a police presence at this time of day, or an occasional visit from the traffic wardens who frequent the other end of town, might be in order. Stewart McNeishKenmore St, Aberfeldy 

Aberfeldy Regeneration Grant Anxiety

General News | Posted on September 8th, 2009 7 Comments »

I read with interest the piece on the Friends of the Birks being awarded £320,000 to initiate the revival of the cinema, but as this is taxpayers money, a couple of questions ambled into my head.  See: Aberfeldy Regeneration Award Success

How is the purchase to proceed? The Cinema is currently on the market at £230,000, as it has been for a while, so I would assume the actual worth of the building is less than its current asking price. Now that the owners knows there is a cheque for £320,000 what’s to stop them demanding all of that?

The article suggested that the total project cost could be in the order of £1.4 million. How and by when will that be raised?

Has there been any survey which states that a fully commissioned cinema in Aberfeldy would be a going concern?

We already have the Locus Centre, and the newly revamped town hall, and the new school will be available soon. Do we really need another projection venue?

Don’t get me wrong, the idea of a viable boutique cinema is a great one, but I wonder if the homework has been done to ensure that the community won’t be left with a derelict cinema in 4 years time, which has been paid for with taxpayers’ money.

What checks and balances do the Scottish Executive ask for to ensure the project is a viable one?

 

 

Alastair Irvine

Weem

 

Rannoch & Tummel OOH Gets Critical

General News | Posted on September 5th, 2009 2 Comments »

Anybody could be excused for finding the out-of-hours dispute perplexing.  But it has never been more important than it is now to shine some light onto the complexities. This is because the long-running dispute is coming to a crunch point. The powers-that-be may find it harder to avoid a meaningful encounter with local opinion than they have previously – although we should not underestimate their capacity to evade.   

There are no less than six reasons why things are coming to a head.       Six Reasons

First, the campaign to restore the former GP OOH service is reinvigorated.Secondly, lawyers have been briefed to support the community.   A solicitors’ letter drafted by Michael Upton, an advocate specializing in public administration law, has been sent to Professor Tony Wells, the Chief Executive of NHS Tayside, giving him a maximum of 20 working days under Freedom of Information legislation in which to answer eleven questions on how he and the Chief Operating Officer went about constructing the annual costings for a GP out-of-hours service. The figures that they cited (£503,000/£506,000  to the community and £556,876 to the members of their Board) seem to be wildly exaggerated. 

This  sense that, in the lawyers’ phrase, the costings were manufactured “by error or invention” is confirmed by some inquiries that have been made on behalf of the community.  A second letter, invoking the 1978 NHS (Scotland) Act, has gone to Nicola Sturgeon as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing at Holyrood. This second letter is related to the FoI request to Professor Wells. It follows on from an earlier letter that Rannoch and Tummel Community Council sent to Ms Strurgeon as long ago as 17 November last year.  The civil servant who replied  on her behalf eleven weeks later ignored both the request to her to intervene and the substance of the letter, a complaint about the costings and five other instances of irregularity. This time it will be harder for Ms Sturgeon  to ignore or sideline the solicitors’ letter.Thirdly, people from Kinloch Rannoch will be going to Forfar on 14 September to attend the annual review of NHS Tayside with a question to ask their Chief Executive and Ms  Sturgeon, who is reported to be attending. To her the question, is essence, will be:  why have you turned your backs on us when we asked you to intervene? Fourthly, there is renewed media interest and thereby a wider public understanding of what is at stake not only for Kinloch Rannoch but also for other remote rural places in the Highlands and Islands. 

Fifthly, an e-petition has been placed on the Scottish Parliament’s website, which calls for the Government to ensure that there is adequate local GP out-of-hours cover in all of Scotland’s remote rural areas. 

Sixthly, and most intriguingly, Lord Monckton has placed an ad in two successive issues of GP Magazine which is intended to break the deadlock by inviting doctors to let him have their expressions of interest in providing an out-of-hurts service in Kinloch Rannoch.

 The Crucial WeekThe crucial week begins on Monday 14 September when a number of us will be going to the NHS Tayside meeting in Forfar.  The deadline for NHS Tayside to respond to the FoI request expires the next day, 15 September.  And at the end of the week, Friday 18 September, there will be a public meeting in the village hall convened by the Community Council. This will have two purposes.  The first of these is to allow Lord  Monckton to  report to the community on the tendering process for the desired – but not yet existent – GP OOH post. So far the indications are that there are several serious candidates and that it t might cost each year about a quarter of the over half a million pounds that the NHS Tayside officials reported to the community and to their Board members. The following week there is to be a meeting of “interested parties” before the Tayside Health Board meets again on 24 September.   Misconception

There is misconception that keeps on cropping up in discussion about whether it’s really worthwhile to keep going on with the campaign after all this time with no result.  The misconception is that NHS Tayside “doesn’t have the money”.  This sounds reasonable but actually is a misconception because it is the Scottish Government that allocates the funds to support the budgets of the different health boards. And the Highland Health Board, for example, was able to fund no fewer than sixteen 24/7 practices as of last summer (the information came in a Minister’s answer to a Parliamentary question lodged by local MSP, Murdo Fraser).

So why then should Tayside Health Board not be able to fund a single medical practice here in Kinloch Rannoch just as it used to do right up to 2006? And at that time under the chairmanship of Peter Bates Tayside Health Board very much wanted to continue to fund this service.    Strange Finances But it is very sensible of local people to ask some searching questions about NHS finances. That quickly brings us to the question of the money that some (but not, repeat not, all) doctors are able to obtain by playing the system.    I am neither doctor nor  Health Board official but what I so far have been able to find out as a lay person is that there is no father bedding for those admirable doctors who still do provide round-the-clock cover in the remote places. In-hours remuneration is fairly generous so health boards do not have to pay vast additional sums to GPs to provide out-of-hours cover, who share out the duties amongst themselves.But it is a different matter when it comes to the lucrative fees that doctors can obtain by doing locums at weekends or in moonlighting for NHS24. The locums do very well for themselves (about £1000 for a weekend) but at least they provide some welcome relief to the hardworking 24/7 doctors.  But it is a different matter with NHS24 – the service that has proved so inadequate in Kinloch Rannoch. True, there has been a marginal improvement in the shift system but, really, it is not fit for purpose. It has come to be regarded, by no less a body than the British Medical Association,  as being very expensive for what it is. Read a doctors’ blog, the kind where they let their hair down, and what you might find yourself reading is a denunciation of “protocolised telephone consultations”.  This is  medical jargon for what so many people, at a weekend or late at night, experience as they are required to explain over the phone to one person after another what it is that ails them, to self-diagnose.As I read the blogs my heart warmed to these indignant doctors who know that this is wrong and who share the same values as their predecessors who over a  hundred years or so would drive out in pony and trap or car to diagnose and treat their patients whatever the hour.   Dick Barbor-Might  

Questionable Questionnaire

General News | Posted on June 26th, 2009 25 Comments »

The questionnaire hit our doormats in the middle of June. It was addressed to all adults in the Rannoch and Tummel community and was from the Centre for Rural Health. We local residents were asked to complete and return the form in a reply paid envelope to an address in Inverness. No date was given for the return of the questionnaire which can be viewed and downloaded at:

http://www.commentonline.co.uk/supplement/Questionnaire06.09KR.pdf 

Is this just another survey, which a lot of people will dutifully fill in to help academics in their research? It is a question worth asking, since the evaluation of Community First Responders, of which this survey is a part, has been commissioned by NHS Tayside. It was the Tayside Health Board which slammed the door on the repeated calls for the restoration of the local GP out-of-hours service. This was lost three years ago when the local doctor was allowed to opt out - against the wishes of Peter Bates, the then chairman of the Health Board.

Since August of last year, under the chairmanship of Sandy Watson, the Health Board has promoted First Responders as its preferred way of “enhancing emergency response.”

There are some worrying things about this particular questionnaire.

No Date for Response

First, and most basically, no date is given for the return of the questionnaire. Nobody filling in the form (and having no other information to go upon) can possibly know if they will miss the deadline if they delay for any reason, for example because they were away from home when the questionnaire came through the letter box. The researchers know the deadline. The respondents do not.

As is customary, the questionnaire has questions about both facts and opinions. There is no great difficulty in finding out the facts but discovering people’s opinions requires objectivity from the researchers rather than partisanship for one side or another side in a controversy.

Prior Commitment

We might ask ourselves, what happens if the researchers from the Centre for Rural Health, the ones who sent out the questionnaire, are already committed to a particular method of delivering health care, which is opposed to another method altogether - which a lot of local residents in Rannoch and Tummel actually support? ? And when there is local controversy on the issue?

This is exactly what has now happened in Rannoch and Timmel with this apparently so straightforward a request which, to recap, is to help a pair of independent researchers, Dr Heaney and Professor Farmer, to get a picture of what it is that local people want.

To know that the issues around GP out-of-hours are controversial you have to look no further than Comment’s website or the pages of the Courier for evidence of that. We are entitled to expect that Dr Heaney and Professor Farmer are reading the local press and so know that these are controversial issues. After all, it is now seven months since Sandy Watson told his Board that Dr Heaney would be helping NHS Tayside with the First Responders project in Kinloch Rannoch.

A Little Bit of History

Let’s pause a moment and go back a bit in time. This isn’t to be obsessed about the history of the dispute but to establish context for what is now being done by Dr Heaney and Professor Farmer as they receive the completed questionnaires in their offices in Inverness.

The controversy has been stoked by NHS Tayside which twice committed to local GP out-of-hours in Kinloch Rannoch before abruptly reversing this policy.

The first occasion when Tayside stood by the local community was when the incumbent GP wanted to opt out and the Health Board tried (but failed) to prevent him. The second occasion was when Tayside specified that cover at nights and weekends should be a “core component” of the new contract for the successors to the outgoing GP. Then, in the winter of 2007-08, Tayside changed its policy, trashing its own specification and appointing the only short listed GP applicant who would not do any out-of-hours.

Promoting first responders

Last August Mr Watson and his colleagues in the senior management team at NHS Tayside went a step further and started to promote a First Responder scheme for the area. At the crucial Board meeting on 13 November (agenda item 6.2) Mr Watson - at the outset of the hour-long discussion - first ruled out discussion about the lost GP out-of-hours service in Kinloch Rannoch as being water under the bridge. But then, a few minutes later as he presided over the meeting, he invited his Board colleagues to consider four options for “enhancing emergency response in Kinloch Rannoch.” One of these options was First Responders and another - GP out-of-hours!

Frightening the Non-Execs

The purpose of this sleight of hand was only too clear. It was to so frighten the Non-Executives on the Board with the supposed huge cost - over £½ Million a year - that they would recoil and choose the very cheap option, ie First Responders. In fact, GP cover for nights and weekends could be secured for very much less. And this was being done successfully in other mainland practices - seventeen of them in the summer of 2008. The Tayside officials must have known this very well, or they were stunningly incompetent.

A Curious Admission

Three of the Non-Execs wanted more time to examine the pros and cons of First Responders. This was denied even though Dr Heaney of the Centre for Rural Health admitted in a letter to the Board that there was no hard evidence for the effectiveness of First Responders. But he himself was an enthusiast for these schemes, having helped to set one up in his home village of Achiltibuie on Scotland’s north-west coast. And as a health policy researcher he had been advocating this kind of scheme, called “Community Resilience”, at least since 2005.

A Wide Range of Medical Emergencies

This was the unpromising start to the introduction of Community First Responders to Rannoch and Tummel. That is not, of course, the fault of the volunteers whose principal aim is to save a life if someone has a heart attack and to reach them in the crucial first few minutes. But this is not anywhere near what is needed, which is to have a doctor available locally to deal with a wide range of medical emergencies that can happen unpredictably and at any time, both in- and out-of-hours.

But this situation, in which residents have to rely upon the inadequate NHS24 out-of-hours service, is the fault of the senior managers in Tayside.

Health Care Planning

Now, after this excursion into the back history of the controversy, let’s return to Dr Heaney, Professor Farmer and their questionnaire.

This is not an evaluation of First Responders in the sense of being an objective and fair-minded way to understand how best to meet healthcare needs.

For the most part respondents will have had no prior experience with First Responders schemes. So how on earth can there be a valid evaluation, especially when there has as yet been no launch?

In any case, to evaluate the scheme decision-makers should be looking to the academic literature and empirical evidence regarding this type of programme and NHS organisation.

A loaded question

The questionnaire skirts around the broader issue of what kind of health care would be best for people in the area, containing a loaded question about people’s preference (or lack of preference) for GP out-of-hours cover. This is posed as representing a requirement that the present GPs would have to work around the clock when, as most people know, two of them live well away from the area. As perhaps fewer know, however, it is common practice in the Highland Health Board area to bring in locums for some at least of the weekends.

The Most Important Problem for the Community?

Of all the questions in this dodgy questionnaire perhaps the most misleading is Question 36, which reads: “Currently, I believe the provision of out of hours cover for emergency healthcare situations is the most important problem the Rannoch and Tummel community have to deal with.” (Strongly agree/ Agree/Neither agree nor disagree/ Strongly disagree)

Imagine that this question had been reworded to read: “… the most important healthcare problem the Rannoch and Tummel community have to deal with.” Then the answers might be very different and, of course, they would relate to the way in which campaigners for the restoration of local GP out-of-hours cover have actually been arguing.

This is not that restoring this service is all important for the community, but that it is one outstanding issue in terms of healthcare provision. The other such strongly felt issue, of course, is the restoration of the full ambulance service, staffed by paramedics. As it is, the way that the Centre for Rural Health academics have couched their question is likely to produce an artificially low figure for the “strongly agrees” and “agrees”.

First Responders’ Reference Group

Along with his colleague, Professor Jane Farmer, Dr Heaney is now on the First Responders Reference Group which was set up by NHS Tayside soon after their Board meeting last November. This group, which brings together representatives from NHS Tayside and the Scottish Ambulance Service with selected local representatives, has reportedly been periodically meeting in the surgery over the last few months. Have Dr Heaney and Professor Farmer consulted with them? Who knows.

A long time coming

Dr Heaney has been a long time coming. Back in June 2005 a report came out by Heaney and Hall, ‘Out of hours care in remote & rural Scotland: identifying sustainable strategies for change.’

This is an extract from the report: ‘The role of GPs in emergency care is also changing with paramedics taking on extended roles, again this may have an impact on rural general practice. The new service may also motivate people in rural communities to participate in emergency care by establishing first responder groups. The public will need to be educated about these new roles.’

This is such an interesting use of language. At that time there was a mass exodus by GPs from out-of-hours working. And it looks as though, four years later, Dr Heaney now has his opportunity. But people will need to be “educated.”

Change of Mind at the BMA

Things have changed since these words were written. Nowadays the people representing the doctors’ interests, notably the BMA, are desperate to regain GP control over out-of-hours services. As one of them told me only the other day, “the pendulum has swung too far against GPs doing OOH.”

This may not be the position of NHS Tayside’s Sandy Watson, or of our own GPs. But elsewhere more and more GPs are coming to believe that something must be done, given the multiple failures of NHS24, which costs far more than anybody ever expected and which causes distress - and even danger - to patients who may have to wait hours for a doctor to attend, if at all.

Dick Barbor-Might

Kinloch Rannoch

Pitlochry Centre Development

General News | Posted on June 19th, 2009 18 Comments »

Having moved to Pitlochry only recently, I have been struck by the town’s unique beauty.  Only a year ago I hardly knew it existed apart from the reputation of its theatre.  Having been here for two months now, I know I want to spend the rest of my life here.  It is a jewel of a town surrounded by wonderful countryside, rivers and mountains.  Every day I find something new that literally takes the breath away and I firmly believe that its character must be conserved at all costs.

Already, though, I have heard that potential threats face the town – a development in its heart which would look more appropriate in Cumbernauld or Milton Keynes.  It would be a tragedy if Perth & Kinross Council allowed an inappropriate development to be built including the demolition of a pretty Victorian house with crow-step gables to allow the construction of characterless lock-up shops and banal flats.I would think that what Pitlochry needs is sensitive small-scale development which puts the interests of local people first and which provides houses and jobs for the young to stop them having to move away from Pitlochry.When my great-grandmother came to Scotland in 1871 (taking advantage of the recently constructed railways) she fell in love with it, but having toured the Trossachs and the West Coast, it was her visit to the Dunkeld/Pitlochry area which impressed her most.  She confided her impressions to her diary which I still have.  If she came back today she would still be struck by its charm and attractions.  But what about in 2028, when Pitlochry will celebrate its tercentenary?If I live until 2028, what sort of town will I consider it to be?  A town which was once a beautiful place to visit and a pleasure to live in or one that has recently been ruined by greedy developers aided and abetted by supine Council planners?  All I know after two months of living in this town is that it would be so easy for P&K Council to make the wrong decision for short term gain (to fulfil its quotas?) and that Pitlochry would thereby lose its unique charm and beauty for ever.I would maintain that Pitlochry does not need a comprehensive development plan.  If the Curling Rink is no longer needed then it should be replaced by attractive but low cost houses or flats which benefit local people.  Above all, whatever is decided, the people who live here should be consulted.  Wholesale demolition should not be considered and greedy developers should look elsewhere. Roger W H WestThe Steading, Croftinloan

Blog Design by Explore Scotland Design