The UK AIP is the legal source document which describes any procedure at a UK licenced airfield. The UK AIP contains the procedure linked by Abu Bebo.
True, and the issue PBY highlights is clear in the current AIP text, even if there's some confusion about plates:
02
Climb straight ahead to 500 ft or I-FNL D1.0,
whichever is later, turn right to intercept the
GAM VOR/DME 017R from GAM VOR/DME
(197R to GAM VOR/DME) and continue the
climb inbound towards GAM VOR/DME. At
GAM VOR/DME D5 or FL 80, whichever is
later, turn left to intercept the GAM
VOR/DME 099R to ROGAG. Climb not
above FL 80 initially. Climb when instructed
to cross ROGAG level or above FL 160
Notes
1 These routes are not assessed for obstacle clearance and do not constitute Standard Instrument Departure procedures.
So you climb straight ahead to 500 feet and then make a turn of 180 degrees (minus the intercept angle) to the right.
If the PANS-OPS criteria for an omnidirectional departure are met, why on earth not say so? If the criteria are
not met, why on earth clear aircraft to fly it?!
How do pilots cope with other airfields which they have not visited in daytime that don't have published departure procedures containing obstacle clearance guidance ?
If the reciprocal runway has an IAP, climb straight ahead to MSA before turning. If not, don't depart in IMC! In such cases, wouldn't you expect the operator to develop suitable procedures to assure obstacle clearance?
I think there's a clear difference between controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Within controlled airspace, there is a reasonable expectation that any ATC clearance provides obstacle clearance.