EHJ March 2005, pages 7

The controversial housing bill has generated much debate with headline grabbing issues such as the housing health and safety rating system. As a result some may have overlooked the insertion of a clause in the bill allowing ministers to order a change in the statutory definition of overcrowding.

The definition has remained unaltered since 1935 and was hardly ideal even then, allowing living rooms to be used for sleeping. Remarkably, the needs of babies and children, for space to develop and play, were not recognised at all. The standard concluded that children under 10 should only be counted as "half" people and babies not at all. Given that many homes lacked internal WCs and bathrooms, and that five years later the country was at war, the 70-year-old overcrowding standard can be viewed as a standard of its time but singularly unsuitable for modern day 21st century living.

I can recall countless occasions involved in assessing housing conditions and struggling to explain why a household is not statutorily overcrowded, when quite clearly there is not enough room to swing the proverbial cat. I am sure other EHPs have experienced similar situations. It is almost impossible to rationalise to angry and bemused occupants that their twin six-month-old babies do not count under the overcrowding standard and that their seven- and eight-year-olds can quite adequately share the only other bedroom. And in any case, their open plan living room and kitchen can always be utilised as extra sleeping room as the children get older, so in fact they will not be statutorily overcrowded for about another 10 or 12 years. Quite rightly, I have never been thanked by families for my helpful advice on how to reorganise their living arrangements. In cases where a member of the household has a severe physical disability or, where there is a requirement for extra space for a child with special needs, I have felt a deep sense of embarrassment as I deliver my verdict to the exhausted and hopeful householder, whose hopes rest on me to assist them.

Surprisingly, government figures estimate that just 20,000 households in England are overcrowded, using the statutory definition. However, according to the more modern bedroom standard, introduced in 1960, around half a million households are overcrowded. In London, the most severally affected area, around 180,000 households lack one or more bedrooms. Newham LBC has six times the national rate of overcrowding at 15 per cent. For larger households, those with five or more persons, the national rate of overcrowding is 20 per cent. The social rental sector is the most overcrowded. The top 12 local authorities with most overcrowding are all in London.

The proposed changes to the standard have prompted fresh research into the effects of overcrowding, which have shown links with stomach cancer, meningitis, h. pylori infection, respiratory conditions in children and TB for adults. There is also evidence to suggest that overcrowding in childhood affects aspects of adult health.

Although research has failed to establish conclusive links between overcrowding and general mental health, I know from my own investigations into cases of statutory noise nuisance that overcrowding is often a recurrent factor. Regardless of the fact that we have a housing shortage already, this government needs to get its overcrowded house in order.