Gedling Borough Council

The authority had developed a comprehensive service plan for 2009/2010 which was fully in accordance with the service planning guidance in the Framework Agreement. The service plan had received approval from the council’s Environment and Licensing Committee.

Detailed documented policies and procedures had been developed and implemented by the authority for the full range of food law enforcement activities. These were regularly updated and subject to annual review, and had been consolidated into a food document for 2009/2010, which had also received Committee approval.

The authority had a documented procedure for the authorisation of officers. All officers carrying out food law enforcement activities had been appropriately authorised in line with their individual qualifications, experience and competency.

Records confirmed that authorised officers employed by the authority had received adequate Continuing Professional Development (CPD) training as required by the Food Law Code of Practice. Additional training on the auditing of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) based food safety management systems, food law enforcement procedures and more advanced use of the database system, were recommended.

Database checks confirmed that in general the service had effective arrangements for ensuring that the food premises database was accurate and kept up to date. These included regular directory checks, the monitoring of local advertising publications and intelligence gathering by the authorised officers. There were appropriate systems and procedures in place for database backup and to manage access to ensure security of data.

Audit checks confirmed that the authority had achieved its inspection targets for 2008/2009, and it was clear that inspections had been effectively programmed and monitored. File records checks confirmed that inspections had been carried out at the minimum frequencies required by the Food Law Code of Practice, in all risk categories, and food premises had been correctly risk assessed. However, audit checks revealed that, in most cases, records of inspection findings were not sufficiently detailed, and did not always include enough information relating to the specific checks carried out to verify compliance with relevant hygiene regulations, including HACCP requirements. Further development of the inspection aide-memoire was required to include appropriate prompts to ensure that officers gave detailed consideration to the full range of legal requirements for all types of food premises including approved establishments.

The authority had one food establishment that was subject to approval requirements. It was previously approved under superseded legislation but had not been re-approved in accordance with current legal requirements and centrally issued guidance. The establishment should be re-assessed and where appropriate, approved to confirm compliance with current requirements and guidance.

Complaints about food and food premises were generally dealt with effectively, and records of complaint investigations were, in the main, complete and accurate, although in some cases it was not always possible to follow the actions taken from database records alone.

There was clear evidence that the authority was actively participating in local and national sampling programmes. In relation to unsatisfactory samples, audit checks confirmed that appropriate follow-up actions had been taken in all cases.

There was evidence of quantitative monitoring of inspections, complaints, sampling and infectious disease investigations, against set targets. However, arrangements for qualitative monitoring needed to be extended to include all aspects of the authority’s food law enforcement responsibilities, and records of internal monitoring should be maintained.