Owl felt that this well argued comment, and ultimate challenge, from Tim deserved its own post, especially given his experience:

From what I can determine, government has on more than one occasion considered the question of who should be subject to DBS checks and it decided that councillors, by virtue of that position alone, need not. Anyone asked them why?

I do not recall a call by any body representing councillors that the government thinking is wrong on this.

Councillors who maybe required to interact with vulnerable persons, by virtue of some relative port folio, should be required to have checks appropriate to the involvement. That is not in dispute but it is the nature of the interaction/port folio not the position as councillor that drives the requirement.

I’ve heard some councillors say ‘oh but we visit the elderly or whatever so we should be checked’ . Well so do post-people, canvassers, painters and decorators and countless others. What is so special about councillors in this regard? Such visits are relatively rare compared to other home visits and if you bring in councillors then tens of thousands of others need them by virtue of their occasional home visits.

It is worth remembering that the sole purpose of DBS checks is solely to protect vulnerable individuals. It is not to ‘enhance’ the standing of those councillors who might like to think – “look at me I’ve got a level X clear DBS check”- or several as I recall at least one EDDC councillor stating straight off the bat when this was first discussed!

Having some past close working experience in the criminal intelligence gathering field, though before DBS checks as they now exist came in, I frankly don’t place too much trust in them. Most certainly I would not rely on them as a guarantee of character. They can and do give a completely false sense of security.

I have yet to determine whether Humphreys had, or applied for, any such checks. Should he have done so not least given some of the reports of his other non-council but ‘official ‘ work involving placements and other so far unmentioned work? The level of check needed for him would perhaps needed to have been at the highest level to pick up that he may have been interviewed over allegations (I still don’t know for sure if he was interviewed under caution as a suspect) or at what might be called the informed but reliable gossip level of criminal intelligence. (and the ‘gossip level’ is a minefield) If councillors should be DBS checked at what level should it be – again, what is so special about them yet isn’t enough for government? One cannot help but wonder why nothing was picked up through his lodge connections and passed on to authorities- my (non-member) experience is that some can be pretty tight with one another and I note, not all such memberships have been declared locally.

At the present time there is already a weeding system for applicants for councillor positions at the very outset though government rules- that though needs to be tightened and would continue to be applied nationally, (necessary not least so that there are no repeats of certain London Labour MP’s sons avoiding the restrictions or being required to resign because they had only been arrested for drug dealing when the form was completed and had not yet been convicted)

We should and must protect vulnerable people – yet we fail them constantly. I believe that far too much trust is placed on DBS checks which are at the very best, simply a snapshot in time and often incomplete especially in areas that matter most. Every single sex offender would be able to pass a DBS check at some point in time and continue to be able to do so until he or she does something that would raise a qualifying flag that makes them a more likely bet of being a risky character and ‘failing’ a DBS. Can a DBS check EVER protect the first victim? The claim that Jimmy Saville could have had a clean sheet DBS wise seems to me to be quite a reasonable one given he was given the keys for Broadmoor and Stoke Manderville.

It does concern me that existing measure are not smart enough – but this is part of a wider national debate about intelligence gathering, respect for privacy and labelling. It is very complex and not for here.

The local clamour for DBS councillor checks seems more political and profile raising than a reasonable and sound suggestion aimed explicitly at enhancing protection for vulnerable people at large. I fail to understand why anyone truly concerned with protecting vulnerable people would only argue for their district and not the country. Starting local doesn’t wash in such matters. That said, it is worth noting that arguing against it as a councillor opens one up to unhelpful ‘what have you got to hide arguments’ so I understand why the calls may go unchallenged . But, as joe public, and with some knowledge of the system, I can and do challenge the call. I challenge those parties suggesting it as to whether they are really serious about protecting the vulnerable or whether they have another agenda. Do you have a past and proven record of raising it nationally – which would be the sensible thing to do? Have you got the issue lined up for regional and national political conferences. Have you asked questions of government questioning the present system? If you have why haven’t you opened up about it? Let’s see the paperwork if you have, show us just how committed you are to protecting the vulnerable across the country and not just East Devon.

If such evidence is not forthcoming I think we will be entitled to question whether this is just a shameful diversion from East Devon Tories to deflect just how rotten some of their core members have been and how little they have done to keep their house in order, or something else.

We live in a jungle of acronyms.  Once, like real trees in the real Matto Grosso, they sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere and did the planet no end of good.  Lately, a new acronym has taken root in the thin soil of UK politics and threatens dire consequences.  Welcome to the world of FAF. 

Here in sunny Exmouth we have our share of problems.  Those officially charged with mitigating their worst effects rename them challenges, but semantic slights-of-hand solve nothing.  The current problems, exacerbated this summer by a tsunami of staycationers, include an ever-bigger breed of camper vans,, and a locally-grown crop of eager boy racers. 

A good friend of ours, a gifted entrepreneur unafraid of management structures large or small, has declared a war of his own on these cowboys, and devoted time he can scarcely afford to try and run them out of town.  I suspect he dallied with the full vigilante, including punishment beatings and those stinger things the cops drape across roads to shred the tyres of the ungodly, but as a super-concerned warrior citizen he decided to play within the rules. 

As anyone who’s ever tried to thread the needle of local government will attest, this isn’t easy.  Key fault lines between organisations that should be talking to each other are everywhere.  West of the Lifeboat station on Exmouth’s seafront, for instance, the seaward side of the road  belongs to Devon County Council, while the rest takes its orders from East Devon District Council.  This may sound wildly theological but if you’re trying to stop parked monster camper vans overhanging both the promenade and the road itself, it helps to know which doors to bang on.  In other words, it takes an act of the wildest optimism to assume that one arm of local government belongs to the same body as the other. 

Undaunted, our friend figured out a strategy, wrote himself a carefully-sequenced action plan, spent weeks collecting visual evidence, recruited support from the like-minded, and then used Zoom and his remaining stock of patience to set up virtual debates between all the interested parties.  Given the targets on which he was drawing a bead, these sessions had to include officers and councillors from Exmouth Town Council, East Devon District Council, a uniformed inspector from Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, plus sundry other interested parties. 

The problems were defined, aired, and debated.  Minutes were kept, rival positions explained, the civic meadow thoroughly ploughed.  At the end of this consultative phase, each interest group retired to review exactly what might have changed.  The weather, meanwhile, took a sudden turn for the worse and a series of grey days have made life slightly tougher for both the campervans and the boy racers.   

Undeterred, our friend has commendably made it his business to keep everyone in this rapidly-expanding citizen loop fully up to speed with his latest thinking.  Long memos seek to penetrate local government defences and make a forced landing on their turf.  He – and we – want some semblance of order imposed on both the rogue campers and the cowboy racers.  In the interests of peace and quiet, might there not be a call for properly policed parking sites with a range of facilities?  For a lower speed limit?  And for effective law enforcement to put the boy racers back in their cage? 

To their great credit, the police have a scheme to enrol locals in this latter battle, and there are signs that this will happen.  Councillors are likewise eager for action, as – privately – are certain local government officers.  But the timescales involved are geological – aeons of meetings, e-mails, local consultations, letters to the Exmouth Journal, and sundry other eruptions of local rage.  Nonetheless, our friend has called on years of experience in the private sector and come up with a cunning plan in order to maintain the momentum.   

This, I need hardly tell you, has now been released into the wild as an acronym. TAFF means a Task and Finish Forum.  Ironically, this management tool appears to have come from local government in the first place.  Each next step in our collective journey towards a better seaside life, insists our friend, is to be carefully described, and ticked when agreed and certified.  This, of course, is marking local government’s own homework, and has raised a thin smile amongst officers in Honiton and Exeter. 

One of them happens to be a friend, and we had a drink a while back.  In his heart, and I believe him, he’s totally with us.  He lives in Exmouth.  He loves the place.  He has kids.  And he likes to sleep at night, undisturbed by pimped exhausts and burning rubber.  But the real problem, he says, is resource.  Central government have kept local councils on starvation rations for most of the decade and now there’s no fat left.  Whatever you do, wherever you turn, costs money.  And there isn’t any. 

When I asked him whether this might be deliberate, an equally cunning plan to make local councils the sitting ducks for public protest, he simply nodded.   

‘We’re knocking on Whitehall doors every working week,’ he said.  ‘And we get precisely nowhere.’ 

‘How come?’ 

‘They’ve come up with an acronym.  It’s beyond cynical but it’s bloody clever.  Eff A Eff.   Faff And Forget.’ 

Were it not for the triple whammy of Brexit, Covid, and now Kabul, FAF would be mildly funny, but apply the Whitehall acronym to the whole range of governmental responsibilities and maybe we find the explanation for where we currently find ourselves, as both a seaside town beset by yobbery, and as a nation hopelessly adrift. 

FNBIONYGN   For nothing, believe it or not, you get nothing. 

                                                                                                     Graham Hurley 

Second homes could face bans under new legislation reportedly being considered by the Government.

Aaron Greenaway www.devonlive.com

It’s been reported that the Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick is planning a range of reforms that will give councils the power to ban the creation of second homes if they are deemed damaging to the community without a referendum on the issue.

The changes will form part of a ‘triple clampdown’ which it is reported will alleviate some of the extreme housing pressures in Devon and Cornwall along with granting Councils powers to insist developers build more starter homes as opposed to focusing on properties likely to be attractive as holiday homes .

New changes to planning rules could also be on the horizon, too, with a potential change of the rules to require owners of a property to get planning permission before conversion to a holiday let.

The Daily Mail reports that a Government source has insisted that while ministers were ‘not anti-second homes’, there was a need to tackle the issues in areas where ‘high levels of second home ownership are blamed for pricing local people out of the housing market.’

It also reports that while no final decision has yet been made on the subject, Mr Jenrick was ‘open’ to the proposals. In addition, where the plans to be put into law would primarily target traditional holiday lettings and Airbnbs – as well as not being applied retrospectively or apply to long term rentals.

Any new changes in legislation will come as part of new planning legislation this autumn with the intention of providing respite to areas seeing exceptional demand.

The proposal to prevent newly built properties from being sold to a non-residential buyer without a referendum closely mirrors a decision taken in St Ives, Cornwall in 2016. After residents voted for the proposals in a referendum, a ban on developers building new properties for the second home market was implemented, with new homes only able to be sold to people who can prove they will use it as a primary residence.

Under the new proposed legislation, Councils would not have to win a referendum to make this possible.

In 2019, a study by the London School of Economics said that the ban implemented in St Ives may have backfired, with developers choosing to build elsewhere with locals facing stiffer competition from those seeking to buy existing properties from elsewhere.

Professor Christian Hilber, who authored the study, however, noted that restricting second homes may have ‘positive effects on amenities and affordability while coming at a cost of a significant adverse effect on the local economy.’

Last month, DevonLive launched its Priced Out Campaign, which aimed to explore the impact of increasing house prices in our communities.

Alex Davis www.devonlive.com 

In response to our Priced Out of Devon survey, more than 1,000 people have shared their thoughts as to whether there is a housing crisis in the county.

Currently, 75% of participants in the survey believe Devon is currently in a housing crisis, with 76% agreeing with the statement that houses are more expensive now than 20 years ago.

80% of participants believed that there should be a cap on second homes in the county, while out of 1282 responses, 80% of participants believed that locals were being priced out of their communities.

Of the people who completed the survey, 60% owned a home, 32% rent and 6% registered themselves as currently homeless.

One participant said: “My son is saving for a deposit but he’s also renting 50 miles away as it’s cheaper inland. Most of his wages go on rent so he will be saving for years.”

Another said: “Second homes are killing the community and driving out locals. Second home owners put a drain on local amenities and don’t put anything back. Long term it will kill off communities.”

Despite the majority of participants agree that Devonians are being priced out of their area, some readers believed that people could prioritise more in order to find a house on the market.

One participant in the survey said: “Most young couples run two cars, take foreign holidays, gym contract, the latest mobile phones and WiFi. They need to learn to prioritise, stop moaning and pull their belts in just like the generations before them did.”

Another commenter added: “People need to expand their horizons. They might not be able to afford to live in high demand coastal locations, but move 10 or 15 miles inland or to larger towns and they will find it more affordable. This has always been the case.

“When we bought our first house nearly 20 years ago we could not afford to live in the village where I grew up. We bought a house in a nearby town saved up some more and then could afford to move to the village where we wanted to be. Patience and priority are what is important: not the latest iPhone or another tattoo!”

In South West England, listings for properties in South West England have fallen by 49% since 2019, with rents also up 23%.

Availability of housing has made it incredibly difficult for residents to find homes in the county. On August 4 2021, there were 2591 holiday let listings for properties in North Devon, compared to 21 properties listed to rent on Zoopla and 30 on Rightmove. In South Hams, 10% of landlords have holiday lets; the analytics website AirDNA counts 2521 holiday lets, but there are just 31 homes to let on Zoopla.

While housing crises have been announced in coastal towns, such as Ilfracombe, they have also been declared in Bideford, Great Torrington and Braunton.

Many responses from DevonLive readers showed that the housing issues in Devon are not restricted to younger people.

One participant in the survey said: “My husband and I cannot afford to buy our next property, we are both in our sixties. We live with our daughter who owns her home. We sold our property before COVID moved in with her and due to COVID and my husband shielding lost our chance to buy a property at a reasonable price.

“We live in Torbay and are shocked by how many people are buying and own second properties and more. In our road there are holiday rentals and an empty holiday home. There needs to be high taxes on holiday homes to bring more to the market or fund more affordable homes. All new homes need to be rst and only homes.”

Another said: “I am a 30 year old working professional and house prices mean it is difficult to save for a deposit when rental prices are so high. You can’t afford to live and save.”

Increasing rent has become a greater struggle for single parents or lone tenants, who often don’t have a combined salary to hit the salary requirement.

One reader said: “I am a single doctor and cannot afford to upgrade and move from my two bed flat to somewhere with a garden as they are out of my price range. It must be even harder for others.”

Another participant said: “I am a single dad with two children living with me both with a disability, I’ve been on Devon home choice since 2016 and still getting on there. Since COVID, people are buying up houses like no tomorrow down here rather than living up North. It seems the single family parents are suffering, just because we are single parents. We shouldn’t be treated like this.”