Agenda item

To approve the Food Safety Service Plan 2024/25. 

That the Food Safety Service Plan 2024/25 be APPROVED. 

11.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Service: Environmental Health, circulated at Pages No. 69-90, which attached, at Appendix 1, the draft Food Safety Service Plan 2024/25.  Members were asked to approve the plan.

11.2          The Lead Member for Environmental Services explained that Tewkesbury Borough Council was the statutory competent authority responsible for the enforcement of food safety legislation in the borough.  As such, it was required by the Food Standards Agency to publish an annual Food Safety Service Plan. The purpose of the plan was to set out the Council’s arrangements for the delivery of official food controls which included inspections, audits, sampling and enforcement interventions.  The draft plan for 2024/25 was set out at Appendix 1 to the report.  Paragraph 2 of the report summarised the key targets for the service which included: a commitment to inspect 100% of all high and medium risk food businesses within one month from their inspection due date; a commitment to inspect 100% of all low-risk food businesses within the 2024/25 year; a commitment to take at least 40 samples to verify compliance with food safety requirements and to respond to 100% of infectious disease notifications within the relevant timescales in line with standard operating procedure which indicated food borne illness including reports of Salmonella, E.coli, Campylobacter, Listeria and Clostridium.  Paragraph 2 also set out the Councils internal arrangements for Officer competency and performance monitoring which included: an authorised Officer to be subject to at least one validation visit with the Council’s Lead Food Officer; the Lead Food Officer to periodically review inspection reports; and authorised Officers to participate in both national and regional consistency exercises.  Although the delivery of the plan was anticipated to require two full-time equivalent authorised Officers, it was not expected that any additional resource would be needed to meet the targets set out. 

11.3          A Member drew attention to the legal implications section of the covering report, set out at Page No. 69, and indicated that two of the regulations listed appeared to be the same.  In response, the Head of Service: Environmental Health clarified this was an error and the Council was responsible for enforcing the provisions of Regulation (EC) 852/2004, Regulation (EC) 853/2004 and Regulation (EC) 854/2004.  The Member went on to draw attention to Page No. 76 of the report and the ‘Organisational structure’ section of the Food Safety Service Plan which referred to the ‘Clean and Green’ portfolio and pointed out this was now the ‘Environmental Services’ portfolio.  In response to a query as to whether local Members should be notified when there were issues with food premises in their areas, the Head of Service: Environmental Health advised that a Member Update would be circulated to all Members if a premises was being closed, or if there was an urgent public health risk.  He pointed out that anyone could search for businesses which were zero rated on the Food Standards Agency website but would be happy to contact Ward Councillors specifically if there was a serious health situation in their area. 

11.4          A Member queried whether there was a role for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to play in terms of monitoring delivery of the plan and the Head of Service: Environmental Health explained there were no Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) relating to the plan within the performance tracker so it would not be monitored by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee; however, there were KPIs within the service plan which went to the Chief Officers Group (COG) so it would be monitored by senior Officers.  The Chair pointed out that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could request to monitor the plan should that be felt necessary at any point.  A Member sought assurance there was enough Officer resource to meet the timescales set out within the plan and was advised that this would be the focus for two full-time equivalent Officers so it was hoped that would be sufficient.  Notwithstanding this, it would be difficult to achieve 100% as not all premises were open or trading so the figures would need to be adjusted to reflect those which were available for inspection.  If the targets were not being met, this would be monitored by COG which would help to support a case for additional resource.

11.5          It was proposed, seconded and