EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
Food Safety Service Plan (2006/2007)
This service plan has been set out in accordance with the “Framework
Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement” and addresses the
The Food Safety Service aims and objectives.
The background against which this authority provides its Food Safety
The Food Safety Service delivery details and policies.
The current resources available to provide the Food Safety Service.
The measures to be taken to assess the quality of the Food Safety
The arrangements as to how this service plan is to be reviewed.
2.0 Service Aims and Objectives
2.1.1 To ensure that food and drink intended for human consumption,
which is produced, stored, distributed, handled or consumed within
the District is without risks to the health of the consumer.
2.1.2 To increase public confidence in the safety of food sold within the
District of East Hampshire and in the Food Safety Service that the
2.1.3 To enhance the understanding of food safety principles in the
minds of the population of East Hampshire.
2.1.4 To provide a food safety enforcement service that meets the
requirements of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and guidance
issued by LACORS (Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory
Services) and agrees with the principles of the Enforcement
2.1.5 To encourage good practices by food handlers and to make them
realise the potential impact that bad practices may have upon their
REF OBJECTIVE TARGET DATE
2.2.1 Achieve greater take up of Food Hygiene Award in 31st March 2007
local food businesses. 12% of food premises to
reach award standard.
2.2.2 Inspect 100% of food premises categorised A, B C 31st March 2007
and D due for inspection between 1st April 2006 and
31st March 2007 (see Table 2). Apply alternative
enforcement strategies for category E premises.
2.2.3 Active participation in this year’s Foodlink Food June 2006
Safety Week (12th to 18th June 2006).
2.2.4 Develop a method of allowing members of the 31st March 2007
public to have access to information relating to the
standard of food premises in the district, i.e. “scores
on the doors”.
2.2.5 Active participation in this year’s East Hampshire November 2006
Schools Science Fair – 2 Day event, Nov 2006 and and March 2007
Thinksafe, March 2007
2.2.6 Work with PCT’s to achieve a higher level of smoke 31st March 2007
free eating places in East Hampshire. Promotion of
new regulations banning smoking in 2007.
2.2.7 To re-establish the food and safety business focus 31st March 2007
group and to have 2 meetings in the year.
2.2.8 Produce two food safety newsletters for food June 2006 and
businesses. January 2007
2.3 Links to other Council Objectives and Plans
This Service Plan takes account of the Environmental Health Services
Business Plan 2006/07, the Council’s Community Strategy and Corporate
3.0 Framework to Service Delivery
3.1 Profile of East Hampshire District Council
East Hampshire has a population of approximately 113,600 living within an
area of approximately 200 square miles. The largest communities in the
District are the market towns of Petersfield and Alton, Horndean and the
Whitehill/Bordon area. Many people live in the outlying villages and rural
locations of the district. There are approximately 3,200 commercial premises
in the district.
3.2 Organisational Structure
Head of Environmental Services
Environmental Systems Manager David Robertson Environmental
Services Manager Env Services Manager Services Manager
(Env Protection) (Food, Health & Safety, Licensing) (Contracts)
Karen Beale Louise Hamer Julie Royston Emma Paterson Joanne Masters
Senior EHO Senior EHO Senior FSO Senior FSO Senior FSO
FOOD SAFETY TEAM
3.2.1 The Environmental Services Manager (Food Safety, Health &
Safety and Licensing) is the officer responsible for the delivery of
the Food Safety Service. The Food Safety team consists of two
Senior Environmental Health Officers (both of whom are part-
time), and three Senior Food Safety Officers. The Manager of this
team is also responsible for the management of both the Health &
Safety and Licensing Teams. This is not reflected in the above
3.2.2 The Authority has appointed 2 Food Examiners. Wessex
Environmental Microbiology Services, Southampton General
Hospital, carry out the microbiological testing of food on our
behalf. Food that requires physical or chemical analysis is sent to
the Public Analyst at Hampshire Scientific Services in Southsea,
3.3 Scope of the Service
The Food Safety Service consists of food premises inspection, food
sampling, investigation of complaints relating to food or food premises,
investigation of food poisoning incidents and responding to food safety
incidents. The service also provides food safety training and advice to
businesses and the public, and initiates various food safety promotional
activities on food safety matters.
3.4 Demands on the Service
3.4.1 The registered food premises profile for East Hampshire’s District
is detailed below in Table 1. Compared with last year the total
number of food premises has increased by 3%. This follows a
similar increase in 2004/5. The increase is mainly in the catering
sector (4%), particularly cafes, home and mobile caterers, new
residential homes and restaurants.
Seasonal Poultry 9
Small retail manufacturers 11
3.4.2 There are 4 premises (included in Table 1), which have been
approved under specific EC regulations. These specialise in the
production of meat products, milk products and fish products and
are visited at least twice a year.
3.4.3 The service is provided from 9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday
(excluding public holidays and the Christmas period closure).
However, as some food businesses are only open in the evening
or at weekends, on occasions it is necessary to carry out
inspections and investigative work out outside normal office hours
3.4.4 An out-of-hours emergency service includes the facility to respond
to urgent food safety issues, which pose an imminent risk to
3.5 Enforcement Policy
3.5.1 The Authority has signed up to the Central and Local Government
Enforcement Concordat and has a documented enforcement
policy that meets both these requirements and guidance issued by
the FSA and LACORS.
3.5.2 All food safety enforcement decisions will be made following
consideration of our Enforcement Policy. This can be viewed on
the Council’s website. An enforcement option checklist is also
used so that the decision making processes for every case is both
transparent and properly recorded. Any departure from the Policy
will be documented and subject to scrutiny by the Head of
3.5.3 A summary leaflet of the Enforcement Policy is available on
request. It is also left at each inspection or visit where
contraventions of food safety law are identified.
3.5.4 A post inspection questionnaire is also now routinely used so the
food business proprietor has the opportunity to comment on the
quality of the service provided.
3.5.5 All food law enforcement will be carried out in accordance with the
relevant Code of Practice and other official guidance issued by the
FSA and LACORS.
4.0 Service Delivery
4.1 Service Delivery Standards
Environmental Services works to a comprehensive set of customer care
service standards which have been approved by Members.
4.2 Food Premises Inspections
4.2.1 The Food Safety Service maintains a computerised register of all
food premises within the District.
4.2.2 The enforcement of food hygiene regulations is governed by one
statutory Code of Practice and associated guidance issued by the
FSA. These specify the correct procedures and forms to be used
by staff when enforcing the legislation. In particular the Code
specifies a risk assessment scheme which is used to quantify the
potential risk associated with each food business and thereby its
priority for inspection. The use of the risk assessment scheme
ensures that the highest priority is given to premises where
conditions are either below standard or where the nature of the
food handled may present a significant risk to the public should
standards fall. Premises that cater for more vulnerable groups e.g.
residential/nursing care homes, are also inspected more
frequently. The risk assessment profile for food premises in East
Hampshire together with the estimated number of inspections to
be completed in 2006/07 is detailed overleaf in Table 2.
Number of Inspections or
Risk Category Inspection
Premises 13 6 months 26
High risk premises such as (If rating unchanged
restaurants, which have a very after 1st inspection)
poor compliance record.
Larger residential care homes
and manufacturers of high risk 149 12 months 149
foods. High risk premises with fair
to poor compliance record.
High risk premises with good to
fair compliance record (public 361 18 months 241
houses, schools or restauranst
Lower risk premises such as 97 2 years 48
general grocers and public
houses with snacks only.
Low risk premises such village 249 enforcement 83
shops and clubs. strategies
Premises recently or about to 0 Unspecified 0
open and awaiting 1st inspection.
Programme 25 0
Premises such as small B&B’s
that are considered to be of
Total 894 547
4.2.4 The resources necessary to deliver the number of inspections
and revisits detailed above is 2.7 FTE members of staff.
4.2.5 There are no significantly specialised processes in the District,
which would require particular expertise on the part of the officer
conducting the inspection.
4.3 Complaints about Food and Food Premises
4.3.1 During 2005 the Authority received 14 complaints concerning unfit
food and 69 complaints relating to unhygienic food premises. This
represents a 76% decrease (from 58 last year) and 122% increase
(from 31 last year) respectively on the previous year.
4.3.2 The Food Safety Service takes reports of unfit food and
unhygienic food premises very seriously and places a high priority
on their prompt investigation. All complaints will be responded
to within 1 working day and resolved within 6 weeks.
4.3.3 Complaints about food can give an indication of where the food
supply chain has broken down. Such breakdowns may be one-off
occurrences or can indicate a problem that, if left unattended,
could have serious consequences. In some instances, reports of
unfit food are unfounded or can be explained by reasons that do
not indicate a significant breakdown in the food safety controls.
These cases will normally be dealt with informally.
4.3.4 The Food Safety Service will rigorously investigate cases where
there appears to be a genuine problem with food that may present
a risk to health. The primary aim is to eliminate a potential risk to
health to others that may be affected in the future. Where our
Enforcement Policy indicates that legal action should be taken,
and the company involved is unlikely to substantiate a defence of
“due diligence”, legal proceedings will be instigated. The decision
to prosecute will be taken at the recommendation of the officer
concerned in consultation with the Head of Environmental
Services and the Head of Legal Services, and will be in
accordance with the Food Safety Enforcement Policy.
4.3.5 The Food Safety Service has produced a guidance leaflet for the
public on complaints about food and food premises and details
what level of service they should expect.
4.3.6 Currently, it is estimated that the resources necessary for the
provision of this service equates to 0.4 FTE members of staff.
4.4 Home Authority Principle
4.4.1 Where national companies have a number of outlets throughout
the country, there is a danger of inconsistent enforcement as each
outlet is served by different environmental health departments with
varying methods of working. The Home Authority Principle was
devised as a way of ensuring consistency of enforcement. The
local authority, in whose area the headquarters of the company is
located, enters into dialogue with the company to agree national
food safety standards. A particular local authority that has an
enforcement issue to take up with the local branch of the
company, liaises with the Home Authority first before enforcement
action is considered.
4.4.2 A Home Authority arrangement has been in place with George
Gale & Co Ltd covering both the production of beer and the food
hygiene standards of their managed public houses. However, this
operation will soon be closed down.
4.4.3 East Hampshire District Council is the Originating Authority for a
number of businesses but they are comparatively small in nature
and therefore no significant resources are committed to this area
4.5 Advice to Business
4.5.1 While the Authority will utilise its powers to enforce food
legislation, it realises that where food businesses break the law it
is often due to ignorance rather than intention. As a consequence
it is the Authority’s policy to provide advice to business in a
number of different ways:
Advisory visits to business premises on request.
The provision of advice to prospective food business
Seminars and one-to-one coaching on “Safer Food Better
The provision of informal advice on best practice over the
telephone and during inspections.
The provision of free advisory leaflets where appropriate.
The provision of advice prompted by Planning or Building
The production of newsletters.
The provision of Foundation in Food Hygiene Certificate
Via our specialised website, www.easthants.gov.uk/foodsafety
4.5.2 A Food and Safety Business Focus Group allows the views of food
businesses on all aspects of our service to be heard. This group
has not met for some considerable time. However, it is our
intention that it be re-established in 2006.
4.5.3 In 2005 a total of 139 food safety enquiries were received. This is
a decrease of 12% on the previous year (158).
4.5.4 It is difficult to estimate the resources necessary for the
provision of the service but it is unlikely to exceed 0.3 FTE.
4.6 Food Sampling
4.6.1 This Authority believes that a pro-active point of sale food
sampling programme can provide useful information about the
microbiological fitness of food sold within the District. New
microbiological guidelines have recently been produced which will
assist this process.
4.6.2 The Authority actively participates in the South-East &
Southampton Laboratory Service (WEMS) User Group that has a
co-ordinated food-sampling programme based on FSA, LACORS
and agreed local priorities.
4.6.3 A sampling policy was approved by Council in April 2003. All
samples are taken in accordance with procedures designed to
ensure continuity of evidence and the prevention of deterioration
or damage to samples while under the Authority’s control.
4.6.4 Arrangements have been made with the South-East &
Southampton Laboratory Service (WEMS) at Southampton
General Hospital to carry out the microbiological examination of
samples and with the Public Analyst at Hampshire Scientific
Services in Portsmouth for other forms of contamination.
4.6.5 East Hampshire District Council’s levels of sampling improved
further in 2005 with a total of 62 samples taken. This represents
an increase of 30% on the previous year. Approximately 20% of
the samples were not of a satisfactory bacteriological standard.
Although none of these food samples were unsafe to eat, further
advice was given to the relevant food business to address the
4.6.5 Currently it is estimated that the resources necessary for the
provision of this service equate to 0.1 FTE members of staff.
4.7 Control and Investigation of Outbreaks of Food Related Infectious
4.7.1 The measures to be taken to control the spread of infectious
diseases are contained in various Acts of Parliament and their
associated Regulations. This legislation places a duty on local
authorities to control the spread of food poisoning and food and
water borne diseases.
4.7.2 Total incidence of food poisoning is gradually decreasing
nationally however cases of Campylobacter, associated with raw
poultry, remain stubbornly high. The incidence of Salmonella
continues to fall due to chicken flock vaccinations. Table 3 below
details the trend in food poisoning in East Hampshire in recent
years. The figures are quoted as a total and per 100,000
Total No. Per
1999 309 272
2000 264 232
2001 307 270
2002 254 224
2003 267 236
2004 258 227
2005 295 260
4.7.3 From the above table it is clear that the rates vary from year to
year. However, the statistics, which are gathered from official
notifications made by GPs, can be affected by a number of
variables. These may be unrelated to the genuine incidence of
food poisoning in an area. The figures can be affected by
demographic factors, general public awareness and critically, the
efficiency and inclination of doctors in making official notifications
to the authorities.
4.7.4 Table 4 overleaf graphically details the total number of food
poisoning notifications received at East Hants DC throughout the
year. Tables 5 and 6 present specific detail relating to
Campylobacter and Salmonella notifications respectively.
TABLE 4 Food Poisoning Notifications 2005
30 TOTAL 2005
20 TOTAL 2004
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
TABLE 5 TABLE 6
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC M
4.7.5 The above graphs clearly detail the typical seasonal peaks for
Salmonella in August and Campylobacter in early Summer. A later
peak in Campylobacter appears in late November. The reason for
this is unknown.
4.7.6 Generally there is a need for new initiatives in the prevention of
these illnesses. The FSA is continuing with its national campaign
to raise awareness among caterers about the dangers of not
handling food correctly (the 4 C’s – Cleaning, Cooking, Chilling
and Contamination). Latterly this strategy has been reflected in the
development of the “Safer Food Better Business” pack for caterers
which became available at the end of 2005. This is a food safety
management system to help businesses comply with the new food
hygiene regulations which came into force in January 2006. The
Food Safety Team have been working hard to promote these
packs through holding seminars, publishing details in its latest
newsletter and during programmed inspections.
4.7.7 The FSA continues its work in working with industry to achieve a
50% reduction by 2010 in the incidence of UK-produced chickens
which test positive for Campylobacter. The Agency will also soon
know if it has been successful in achieving its overall objective to
reduce cases of food poisoning nationally by 20% (based on 2000
figures) by the end of this year.
4.7.8 All cases of food poisoning or suspected food poisoning are
subject to varying degrees of investigation dependent upon the
type of organism and the numbers of persons involved. Isolated
cases of Campylobacter for instance, an infection which is
normally contracted in the home through poor handling of poultry,
are dealt with by contacting and providing information to the
person involved. Cases of Salmonella and E.coli 0157 however
receive a higher degree of intervention in view of the life
threatening nature of the infection. This is done by telephone
interview or through a personal visit to the victim’s home.
Appropriate follow up action will be taken dependent upon the
4.7.9 The Food Safety team has produced a guidance leaflet for the
public on the causes and prevention of food poisoning which is
distributed to every notified case.
4.7.10 All investigations of outbreaks will follow procedures laid out in the
appropriate Hampshire & IOW Health Protection Unit Outbreak
4.7.11 The Authority have authorised 4 “Proper Officers” for the purposes
of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and other
associated Acts and Regulations. All are Consultants in
Communicable Disease Control working for the Hampshire & Isle
of Wight Health Protection Service.
4.7.12 This Authority supports both the North Hampshire Infectious
Disease Liaison Group and the Portsmouth & South-East
Hampshire Infectious Disease Forum which exist to promote best
practice and consistency of approach in this area of work between
the neighbouring local authorities.
4.7.13 The resources allocated to this area of work is approximately
0.2 FTE members of staff.
4.8 Food Safety Incidents
4.8.1 From time to time the FSA issue hazard warnings relating to foods
which may pose a risk to health. Such warnings vary in
significance requiring an appropriate response. Warnings
categorised “For Action” are of high priority and require immediate
action. This may involve contacting and/or visiting food premises
and taking immediate action under powers contained in the Food
Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006. “For Information” hazard
warnings are as the name suggests for information only and do not
usually require direct action by the Authority. All hazard warnings
are received automatically by email direct from the FSA.
4.8.2 The methods of handling all hazard warnings are in accordance
with the Code of Practice issued by the FSA. Where the Authority
becomes aware of a serious localised incident or a wider food
safety problem it will notify the FSA in accordance with this Code
4.8.3 A total of 82 food hazard warnings were received and dealt with in
2005. This represents an increase of 6.5% from 2004. It is
assumed that a similar number of food hazard warnings will be
received in 2006.
4.8.4 The resources allocated to this area of work are
approximately 0.2 FTE members of staff.
4.9 Liaison with Other Organisations
4.9.1 The Council seeks to ensure that any enforcement taken in its
area is fully consistent with those of neighbouring authorities. This
is facilitated by the following:
Adoption of the Enforcement Concordat.
By participation in the Hampshire Chief Environmental Health
Officer’s Benchmarking Group.
Routine contact with neighbouring authorities and other
authorities nationally via EHCNet and by telephone/email
concerning issues about food safety enforcement.
By fully supporting and participating in the work of Hampshire
and Isle of Wight Food Advisory Committee. This body, which
has representatives from all Hampshire and Isle of Wight Food
Authorities, Hampshire Scientific Services and the South-East
& Southampton Laboratory Service (WEMS), has an objective
to ensure that enforcement action taken throughout Hampshire
By participating in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Food
Advisory Committee Inter-Authority Auditing Scheme.
Through the implementation of FSA and LACORS guidance
and Codes of Practice.
Internal liaison with our Planning and Building Control Services
and Land Charges as consultees to the application process.
The Food Safety Service’s own internal consistency
4.9.2 The resources allocated to this area of work are
approximately 0.1 FTE members of staff.
4.10 Food Safety Education and Promotion Activities
4.10.1 This Authority’s education and promotion activities can have a
direct impact on food safety standards. It is therefore committed to
providing advice and information both to business and to the public
via the following methods:
The provision of food hygiene training in collaboration with
Alton College and South Downs College.
The promotion of Food Safety Week which is normally held in
June every year.
A food safety award scheme (see logo below) which
recognises food businesses that operate standards well above
what is legally required. The scheme was launched in June
2002 and has been a great success with around 74 food
businesses currently awarded. This represents a 21% increase
on this time last year:
A twice-yearly food safety newsletter entitled Food Safety
Matters sent to all food businesses of East Hampshire.
Provision of food hygiene advice through the media when
Partnership working with the North Hants consortium of
authorities and CMi on introducing “Safer Food Better
Provision of leaflets on food safety matters.
Provision of food safety information and services on our
By supporting the National Farmers Union through the
promotion of food safety and food labelling in liaison with
Hampshire Trading Standards.
Visiting local schools and educating children in hand washing
Food safety scenarios at events such as Thinksafe and the
East Hampshire Schools Science Fair
Talks/workshops with local food businesses
4.10.2 It is currently estimated that the resources allocated to this
area of work are approximately 0.4 FTE members of staff.
5.1 Financial Allocation
Table 7 overleaf details the financial resources allocated to the Food Safety
Service for 2006/07:
TABLE 7 – Financial resources allocated to Food Safety Service
FOOD SAFETY 2004/05 2005/06 2005/06 2006/07
Actual Budget Forecast Budget
£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Staff Costs 190.9 171.3 175.7 178.8
External Expenditure 19.5 10.8 13.2 11.7
External Income -8.9 -6.0 -10.0 -6.0
EXPENDITURE 201.5 176.1 178.9 184.5
Internal Charges 84.6 76.8 76.8 77.3
Internal Income -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
EXPENDITURE 285.6 252.4 255.2 261.3
5.2 Staffing Allocation
5.2.1 The resources allocated to the Food Safety Service are 4.4
FTE members of staff, a breakdown of which according to
each service area, is given below in Table 8. Approximately
0.5 FTE support staff are dedicated to this area of work.
Service Description FTE’s
Food Premises Inspections 2.7
Complaints about Food & Premises 0.4
Food Safety Education & Promotional Activities 0.4
Advice to Businesses 0.3
Control & Investigation of Food Related Infectious
Food Safety Incidents 0.2
Food Sampling 0.1
Liaison with Other Organisations 0.1
5.2.2 All members of the staff involved in food safety work are fully
competent to inspect all risk categories of premises as required by
the Code of Practice. Those that are competent are also
authorised to serve Improvement Notices. Only the Environmental
Services Manager and two Senior EHOs are authorised to serve
Emergency Prohibition Notices. These are notices that effectively
close food premises when they present an imminent risk to public
5.3 Staff Development Plan
5.3.1 The Authority’s policy is to ensure that all officers involved in food
safety work receive a minimum of 10 hours continuing professional
development training in food safety annually as required by the
Code of Practice.
5.3.2 This training may be provided through attendance at externally
organised courses and seminars or through in-house training
5.3.3 All training received is documented according to corporate
procedures and in accordance with the requirements of the
Council’s IIP accreditation.
6.0 Quality Assessment
6.1 Monitoring Arrangements
6.1.1 The Food Safety Service has food safety policies and procedures
to ensure that its service is provided in a way that is consistent
with FSA’s requirements.
6.1.2 Coupled with this, the service also operates a comprehensive
document control system. Although it is not externally accredited
to ISO 9001 it has been designed in a way to reflect the
requirements of that standard.
6.1.3 The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Food Advisory Committee have
developed an advanced system of Inter-Authority auditing that is
carried out on a 3 year cycle. The next audit is due to take place
during 2006. The Food Safety Service is committed to these
processes and accepts that there is much that can be learned from
6.1.4 The Food Safety Service also operates a system of peer review in
accordance with our internal monitoring and consistency policy. All
letters, reports and enforcement decisions are periodically
scrutinised to identify inconsistencies. Joint inspections are also
carried out with officers to ensure that there is consistent
interpretation of legislation, codes of practice and national
6.1.5 Feedback from customers who request a service is now actively
sought through a new range of customer questionnaires.
6.2.1 The Authority supports the Hampshire Chief Environmental Health
Officer’s Benchmarking Group. The aim of this group is to provide
a simple and effective means of comparing services provided by
different Authorities. The Environmental Health Service actively
participates in benchmarking exercises for all its core services.
6.2.2 As a way of benchmarking quality, the Hampshire & Isle of Wight
Food Advisory Committee have devised a Food Safety Quality
Matrix. Particular aspects of the service are rated, in terms of
quality, from 0 (very low performance) to 4 (very high
performance). The most recent comparison of East Hampshire
against other Hampshire districts took place in August 2004. The
results of this are presented in the ‘spider’ diagram detailed in
Table 9 below. One of the lowest scoring areas identified were
Education and Derivation of Costs. Although the service provides
education in many forms (as highlighted in section 4.10), the
quality standard is heavily skewed towards providing training
events to local food businesses. This has since been addressed
through the running of recent workshop/seminars on the new food
hygiene regulations and “Safer Food Better Business”. It is not
currently a priority to try and improve our position on the matrix
with regards to derivation of costs (time recording). However, this
may be addressed in the future for benchmarking purposes.
Table 9 – Quality Matrix
Matrix Scores -2004
Promotion 3.5 QA System
Education Staff Competancy
0.5 East Hants
0 Group Average
Infectious Disease Control Communication with stakeholders 75% Quartile
Service Requests Derivation of costs
Food Sampling Premises Inspections
6.2.3 Work continues to develop outcome performance indicators (PI’s).
These are designed to help us measure the impact of what we do
rather than how much we do. For the Food Safety Service, specific
PI’s address the following:
1 The public’s perceived level of confidence in the service.
2 Actual improvements achieved in the food hygiene standard of
3 Awareness of food hygiene principles among food handlers.
Since it was decided to abandon the citizens’ panel there are no
recent results from PI1 to compare with an earlier survey which
was conducted in 2002. A numerical method for measuring PI-2
has now been developed and comparison work will begin in 2006.
6.3 Best Value Reviews and Charter Mark
There have been no Best Value Reviews recently conducted within
Environmental Services. However, it is intended that a CharterMark
application be submitted in 2006/7. This will include the Food Safety
7.1 Review against the Service Plan 2005/06.
The Food Standard Agency’s Framework Agreement requires the Authority
to review its performance against the previous years Service Plan and to
identify variances. Details are given in Tables 10 and 11 overleaf.
Table 10: Performance of the Food Safety Service against the 2005/06 Service Plan.
OBJECTIVE AND TARGET DATE NOTES (including variances and improvements to service)
1. Achieve greater take up of Food Hygiene Award in local Currently 74 premises (8%) have reached award standard. This
food businesses. 10% of food premises to obtain award. is still a 21% increase on last year.
2. Inspect 100% of food premises categorised A, B C and D
due for inspection between 1st April 2005 and 31st March YES On track to inspect 100% of high risk premises.
2006 (see Table 11). Apply alternative enforcement strategy
for Cat E and F premises.
3. Active participation in this year’s Foodlink Food Safety
Week (13th to 19th June 2005). Deliver at least 2 separate Talks were given by officers at three local mother and toddler
food hygiene training sessions to voluntary groups relating to groups on the importance of hand washing.
STOP, THINK and WASH.
The project is feasible and certain developments nationally
have meant that there is now greater acceptance on the
4. Investigate feasibility of adopting a “scores on the doors”
YES concept. Work will be undertaken this year to look at the IT
approach to improving sub-standard food premises.
issues involved in producing real-time information access for
5. Active participation in this year’s East Hampshire Schools The team took an active part in both events with approximately
Science Fair, Nov 2005 and “Thinksafe”, March 2006. 850 children being taught about hand washing.
A bid to secure additional resources to implement this objective
6. Investigate adoption of CIEH/ASH Smoke Freedom Toolkit
was rejected at Member conferencing. However, further work is
or similar to achieve a level of smoke free eating places in NO
planned in 2006/07 with the PCT’s to secure more smoke-free
East Hampshire. Action plan to be drafted as a first stage.
eating places in the district. There are currently 24.
7. Prepare for introduction of new European Directive food An additional resources bid was rejected. However, following a
hygiene regulations. Draft and deliver programme for grant from the FSA, EHDC entered into partnership with 5 other
educating food businesses prior to and post 1st January YES local authorities and a consultancy to deliver seminars and
2006. Investigate need for additional resources to enforce coaching to catering businesses on the new requirements. Five
new provisions. seminars have been run since the project started.
Two newsletters were produced and distributed to 900 food
8. Produce two food safety newsletters for food businesses. YES
businesses in June 2005 and January 2006.
Table 11 – Inspections or interventions completed, 1st April 2005 – 22nd March 2006
Number of Minimum Minimum
Inspections or interventions completed
Risk Category Premises on Inspection Inspections
01/04/05 to 22/03/06
01/04/05 Frequency Due
31 6 months
High risk premises with very poor compliance record.
Larger residential care homes and manufacturers of 129 12 months
high risk foods. High risk premises with fair to poor 373 367
High risk premises with good to fair compliance record 346 18 months
(pubs, schools or restaurants etc).
Lower risk premises such as general grocers and public 100 2 years
houses with snacks only.
(includes backlog of Cat E & F from last year)
223 3 years
Low risk premises such village shops and clubs.
13 Unspecified 3 3
New premises yet to be inspected.
Premises outside inspection
programme (e.g. B&B’s)
Total 873 479 539