The focus of debate on housing issues should return to the plight of the thousands of families living with overcrowding, say Liberal Democrat councillors Lynne Thompson and John McCann.

It is not just a matter of comfort or convenience; it has a severe impact on the health and educational attainment of many of Oldham’s children.

Children sleeping in overcrowded bedrooms are more likely to get every bug going around and much less likely to have a quiet area to do homework or to read or pursue hobbies. Also common is disturbed sleep when siblings of various ages and differing bedtimes must sleep together.

It is desperately unfair when, according to the latest statistics the council has published, at least 7 individuals or childless couples appear to be living in five-bedroomed social homes, 25 in four-bedroomed homes, and no less than 341 in three-bedroomed homes.

(It could be that they have a child or children, but that means you can add extra bedrooms to the figures above.)

And that is just the tip of the iceberg – those who have been living rent-free and must now pay towards their unused bedrooms. There could be as many again over pension credit age, who are exempt from the size criteria; it is often the elderly who find themselves in unmanageably large properties when children have left. And then there are people who pay the full (subsidised) rent.

The ideal answer to overcrowding is to build more affordable homes, but that takes time and a great deal of money – up to £200,000 for the family houses which are in high demand.

With 5,555 families in priority need of a new home with 3 or more bedrooms, the majority of them overcrowded, the council should be pursuing every solution. One priority family in 15 could be rehoused if just those grossly under-occupying at public expense moved – potentially as many as one in 8 if all under-occupiers did.

Oldham had until recently an award-winning downsizing scheme which delivered over 200 larger homes for occupation quickly and for around £500 a time.

Councillors Thompson and McCann are seeking its reinstatement, along with a whole raft of other measures, in order to free up large homes for the families they were built for.

Those measures include:
• extra housing list priority for tenants seeking to downsize
• setting up a lodger scheme
• promoting the AGMA Help With Rent scheme for would-be downsizers
• improvements to the home exchange scheme
• a no-eviction policy and a hardship fund to help would-be downsizers who fall behind with rent because they under-occupy.

Councillor John McCann explains: “These are voluntary schemes we are proposing to help people who find themselves financially squeezed because they live in homes which are far larger than they need.

“Our experience with the downsizing scheme was that the big reduction in outgoings was in heating bills and running costs. The reason many beneficiaries, especially older people, had hesitated was the complexity of moving home. Our downsizing scheme’s one-to-one support made it easy and they found themselves much better off.

“We have not hesitated to make common cause with our Labour colleagues on the council in opposing the size criteria legislation where it is bad – inadequate allowance for disability, for instance, and failure to allow for the scarcity of one-bedroomed accommodation.

“However, those with two or more spare bedrooms have a choice because they are vastly outnumbered by families who want family-sized houses. It is council procedure which perversely makes a move more difficult than it need be.”

“The crunch question is whether to press people to move”, says Cllr LynneThompson. The most heart-rending casework I get is still from people living like sardines in overcrowded homes.

“I understand emotional attachments to houses but ultimately I have to question whether it is morally right to allow people to play dog-in-the-manger with publicly-provided houses they do not need and others need desperately.

“I also sympathise with young families struggling with a mortgage so they can realise the dream of a home of their own. Under-occupiers’ outrage that they must pay £21 a week to keep a four or five bedroomed house rings very hollow in their ears – and Labour’s claim they are hard-done-to even more so.

“I believe that, in the first instance, the council should leave people a choice – downsize or contribute if required to. But if selfish people dig their heels in, the council must consider tougher measures and councillors of all parties must face up to supporting that. There is nothing generous about sacrificing children’s well-being to others’ self-interest.”