1. Paul Foster circulated a one page performance report for the Regulatory Services Partnership (RSP) for the quarter October to December 2014.  (NB. It was noted that the circulated paper would be subsequently published on Merton’s web-site – with the other agenda papers for the meeting.)

1.1. Paul Foster then outlined the background to each of the performance indicators (PI’s) included in the report (as detailed below) and responded to queries.

2. EH Commercial Food Safety

2,1. (PI) Percentage of Category A & B high risk food inspections carried out of those due – Paul Foster explained that each Local Authority’s performance on this PI was shown on the FSA (Food Standards Agency) web-site, but that the figures could be distorted as if a premises was closed when an inspector visited, this was recorded as a “no visit”.

2.2. Members requested that in future reports, this PI be quantified by showing the actual number of premises involved.  Paul Foster advised there were about 150 high risk premises (100 –category B; 50 – category A) in Merton, with slightly less in Richmond with the total number of food premises being about 1,500 in Merton and 1,700 in Richmond.

2.3. Paul Foster confirmed that the performance of both Boroughs was very good when compared to other Local Authorities, and explained that the Regulatory Service aimed to complete 100% of such scheduled inspections by the end of the year, but that how quickly they were carried out during the year depended on whether the Commercial Team’s resources needed to be reallocated at times to other more high priority matters such as a major outbreak (e.g. food poisoning etc)

2.4 (PI) Number of food safety complaints received – Paul Foster advised that complaints could include contamination, foreign bodies and wrongly described products. 

2.5 In response to Members’ queries, Paul Foster was unable to advise why the number of complaints in Merton was twice that in Richmond.  During discussions, various theories were suggested to explain the difference, including possibly the respective number of fast food outlets in each Borough, and more residents in Richmond being prepared to complain to the shops/manufacturers directly without involving their Local Authority.

2.6 (PI) Percentage of food businesses rated 0 or 1 on the FSA’s Food Hygiene Rating System (0 = urgent improvement necessary; and 1= improvement necessary) – Paul Foster advised that each premises was scored from 0 (worst) to 5 (best) and issued a certificate showing their score, but that in England, unlike the rest of the UK, there was no legal requirement for the premises to display their certificate. 

2.7. Paul Foster outlined the various stages of the enforcement procedure and indicated that the kind of circumstances that might lead to the final sanction of closing a premises which was only undertaken relatively rarely (in about 0.8% of cases) and only where absolutely required.  He advised that a closure could be challenged in the magistrate’s court and if the closure decision was overturned, could lead to the Local Authority paying compensation to the premises operator.

2.8. In response to Members queries, Paul Foster advised that there was no legal requirement on a Local Authority to advise the public if the Local Authority knew there were food hygiene problems with a particular premises; and the only way a member of the public could ascertain a premises food hygiene score (if no certificate displayed) was to either check the Food Standards Agency’s Food Hygiene Rating System website and/or make a Freedom of Information request.

2.9 A member referred to a large notice in a Croydon paper by Croydon Council just before Valentine’s Day listing premises in Croydon which had a food hygiene score of 0 or 1.  Officers indicated that whilst such a proposal could be considered, there could be legal repercussions if errors were made, and suggested that instead a notice could be published before Valentine’s Day advising people to choose their restaurant carefully and to check its food hygiene rating via the Food Standards Agency’s web-site.

2.10. (PI) Number of interventions (written warnings, legal notices etc) – Members requested that the reason for the high number of interventions in Merton compared to Richmond be investigated.   Officers advised that historically Merton had been very proactive and that Merton Councillors supported a more proactive approach.

3. EH Pollution

3.1 (PI) Number of complaints received – Members queried why the number of complaints in Merton was six times the figure for Richmond.  Officers advised that different amount  of land in each Borough used for certain purposes (e.g. industrial use) partly explained the difference in figures but also noise complaints were handled differently in each Borough at present.

3.2.. Officers clarified that in relation to noise complaints, the Regulatory Services Partnership (RSP) Pollution Team dealt with all such complaints in Merton, but in Richmond, residential noise complaints were still handled internally by Richmond and not by the RSP, though this was due to change as part of the of Phase 2 of the implementation of the Joint Regulatory Service. It was noted therefore the figures for each Borough were not comparing like with like.

3.3 Officers advised that as part of Phase 2 of the implementation of the Joint Regulatory Service, the separate complaint figures for Merton and Richmond could possibly be combined, but that currently the RSP would still be required to supply separate figures for each Borough to such organisations as the FSA (Food Standards Agency).  Various members requested that the Committee continue to be provided with separate figures for each Borough, and that more explanation be provided as to the reasons behind the figures.  The Chair reiterated the need for some form of explanatory narrative to accompany any figures in future.   Officers acknowledged the need to provide and circulate such information in advance.

3.4 Reference was also made to the importance of comparative figures between Boroughs, especially if a further Local Authority wished to join the RSP, in order that costs/budgets could be allocated appropriately.

3.5. (PI) Number of planning referrals responded to –
This was noted.

4. Licensing

4.1 (PI) Number of licensing applications received and processed within statutory timescales – Paul Foster explained that applications had to be dealt within statutory deadlines; that if the deadlines were not met, the applicant could go the magistrates court  and the application could be deemed to be granted, and possibly the Local Authority could be fined.

5. Trading Standards

5.1 (PI) Number of complaints received  - Paul Foster advised that such complaints either come direct to each Local Authority or via “Consumer Advice” (formerly called “Consumer Direct”), a national (government) contact centre.