Chelmsford Borough Council

The authority had commissioned a detailed external audit of its food safety enforcement services in November 2006, which identified a number of key areas for improvement across the service. It was clear that the authority had responded positively to this audit and had taken effective measures to address the areas for improvement highlighted in the report. While there were a few areas of the service that required further development, there was evidence that improvements had been made to procedures and practices across all food law enforcement activities and many of the recommendations from the action plan had been satisfactorily addressed.

The Council had a Service Plan for 2008/2009, which had been approved by members. This was broadly in line with official guidance, although future service planning arrangements would benefit from the inclusion of all aspects of the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement.

The service had effective arrangements in place for ensuring that the food database was up-to-date and that information relating to inspections and other food law enforcement activities were accurate. There were also effective systems for database back-up and to manage access. There were inaccuracies in some of the reports produced by the Service for the purposes of the audit, which could affect the service’s ability to produce accurate Food Standards Agency monitoring returns without the need for time consuming manual data checks.

File and database records checks confirmed that the authority had implemented an effective food premises inspection programme. Inspections across all risk categories had been carried out at the minimum frequencies and within the time frames specified in the Food Law Code of Practice. Officers were proactive in providing advice and support to food businesses.

The authority had a procedure for the authorisation of officers based upon a competency assessment which was recorded in a clear and comprehensive matrix. The schedule of authorisation for individual officers covered the full range of legislation which officers enforced. In the case of one officer it was not clear that the current status of their qualifications was appropriate for their level of authorisation. The authority undertook to confirm the equivalence of the officer’s qualifications and any additional requirements with the appropriate awarding body.

The procedures for internal monitoring had undergone review and there was evidence of quantitative and qualitative internal monitoring of some food law enforcement activities. The internal monitoring procedures and arrangements required further development to ensure they covered the full range of food law enforcement activities and clearly defined the frequency and methods for internal monitoring.