People aged 65 or over
16.4%21 March 2021 · Derby
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
42,785 out of 261,364.
Source and method →Derby · England
Community life
Derby council area. Every figure carries its own date.
A place is more than its average house price. The census shows who lives here and some of the pressures households face.
People reporting bad or very bad health
5.8%21 March 2021 · Derby
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
15,147 out of 261,364.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
54.4%21 March 2021 · Derby
The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All households
57,467 out of 105,652.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
20.6%21 March 2021 · Derby
The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All households
21,809 out of 105,652.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
20.1%21 March 2021 · Derby
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
42,141 out of 209,189.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
29.7%21 March 2021 · Derby
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
62,097 out of 209,189.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
3.7% to 7.9%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 3.7% in Oakwood to 7.9% in Chaddesden West — a gap of 4.1 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 current wards with comparable figures.
Residents described their own health. Differences in age matter, so this is a prompt to investigate needs, not a score for local health services.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oakwood | 3.7% | 470 | 12,666 |
| Littleover | 3.9% | 552 | 14,080 |
| Allestree | 4.3% | 578 | 13,544 |
| Mickleover | 4.4% | 646 | 14,691 |
| Chellaston & Shelton Lock | 4.7% | 733 | 15,760 |
| Darley | 5.4% | 890 | 16,432 |
| Blagreaves | 5.7% | 857 | 14,996 |
| Chaddesden North | 5.8% | 548 | 9,503 |
| Mackworth & New Zealand | 5.8% | 901 | 15,494 |
| Chaddesden East | 6.1% | 540 | 8,793 |
| Normanton | 6.2% | 1,400 | 22,582 |
| Spondon | 6.2% | 789 | 12,663 |
| Sinfin & Osmaston | 6.4% | 1,092 | 17,180 |
| Arboretum | 6.7% | 1,151 | 17,165 |
| Abbey | 6.7% | 969 | 14,374 |
| Alvaston North | 7% | 1,172 | 16,808 |
| Alvaston South | 7.1% | 1,030 | 14,444 |
| Chaddesden West | 7.9% | 798 | 10,158 |
People aged 65 or over
7.8% to 29.2%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 7.8% in Normanton to 29.2% in Allestree — a gap of 21.4 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 current wards with comparable figures.
Age helps locate demand for accessible homes, transport and support. Being older does not itself mean someone needs care.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normanton | 7.8% | 1,763 | 22,590 |
| Arboretum | 8.2% | 1,411 | 17,169 |
| Abbey | 11.3% | 1,627 | 14,371 |
| Sinfin & Osmaston | 11.7% | 2,007 | 17,192 |
| Mackworth & New Zealand | 12.7% | 1,977 | 15,506 |
| Chaddesden North | 14.3% | 1,358 | 9,507 |
| Alvaston North | 14.6% | 2,454 | 16,804 |
| Darley | 15.6% | 2,559 | 16,443 |
| Chaddesden West | 15.8% | 1,610 | 10,165 |
| Oakwood | 17.4% | 2,198 | 12,648 |
| Alvaston South | 17.8% | 2,569 | 14,448 |
| Chellaston & Shelton Lock | 18.1% | 2,849 | 15,742 |
| Littleover | 18.2% | 2,556 | 14,061 |
| Chaddesden East | 19.9% | 1,757 | 8,808 |
| Blagreaves | 20.5% | 3,083 | 15,009 |
| Spondon | 25.1% | 3,176 | 12,638 |
| Mickleover | 26.2% | 3,846 | 14,680 |
| Allestree | 29.2% | 3,951 | 13,516 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
11.8% to 31.9%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 11.8% in Allestree to 31.9% in Normanton — a gap of 20.2 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 current wards with comparable figures.
Formal qualifications are only one part of someone's skills. Training decisions also need current vacancies, employment and residents' experience.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allestree | 11.8% | 1,328 | 11,302 |
| Oakwood | 12.3% | 1,306 | 10,575 |
| Darley | 12.4% | 1,787 | 14,448 |
| Mickleover | 13% | 1,590 | 12,265 |
| Littleover | 13.1% | 1,454 | 11,130 |
| Chellaston & Shelton Lock | 16.2% | 2,060 | 12,685 |
| Mackworth & New Zealand | 18.2% | 2,295 | 12,619 |
| Abbey | 18.7% | 2,235 | 11,964 |
| Spondon | 18.9% | 1,974 | 10,442 |
| Blagreaves | 20.6% | 2,481 | 12,030 |
| Chaddesden East | 20.7% | 1,455 | 7,028 |
| Chaddesden North | 20.8% | 1,568 | 7,523 |
| Alvaston North | 22.9% | 3,076 | 13,428 |
| Alvaston South | 24% | 2,731 | 11,378 |
| Sinfin & Osmaston | 25.8% | 3,307 | 12,803 |
| Chaddesden West | 26.1% | 2,081 | 7,984 |
| Arboretum | 31.7% | 4,219 | 13,290 |
| Normanton | 31.9% | 5,191 | 16,255 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
11.1% to 31.6%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 11.1% in Mickleover to 31.6% in Normanton — a gap of 20.5 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 current wards with comparable figures.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mickleover | 11.1% | 719 | 6,483 |
| Allestree | 11.2% | 663 | 5,936 |
| Littleover | 11.3% | 586 | 5,195 |
| Oakwood | 12% | 657 | 5,458 |
| Chellaston & Shelton Lock | 16.7% | 1,092 | 6,557 |
| Spondon | 17% | 960 | 5,633 |
| Blagreaves | 19% | 1,099 | 5,773 |
| Darley | 20.1% | 1,458 | 7,268 |
| Abbey | 21.3% | 1,379 | 6,485 |
| Mackworth & New Zealand | 21.3% | 1,401 | 6,585 |
| Chaddesden East | 21.4% | 780 | 3,645 |
| Chaddesden North | 21.8% | 839 | 3,856 |
| Alvaston North | 24.1% | 1,788 | 7,428 |
| Alvaston South | 24.3% | 1,422 | 5,860 |
| Sinfin & Osmaston | 27.3% | 1,682 | 6,166 |
| Chaddesden West | 27.8% | 1,187 | 4,271 |
| Arboretum | 31.2% | 1,934 | 6,205 |
| Normanton | 31.6% | 2,158 | 6,829 |
Local places and initiatives
Derby Market Hall
Derby Market Hall operating improvements
The historic hall has reopened, but its long-term success depends on traders and regular customers. The next phase focuses on the mix of stalls, opening hours and financial performance.
Reopened; operating review and improvements under way · evidence dated 2026-09-29
Responsible body: Derby City Council
Latest evidence: The council confirms reopening in May 2025. It reports changes to opening hours and trader recruitment, and proposes exploring a specialist partner while retaining council ownership.
Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Future plans to maximise potential of Derby Market Hall →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Make the reopened Market Hall work for regular users →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Derby Riverside, including Meadow Road, Meadow Lane and the Phoenix Street area
Derby Riverside flood defences
The riverside scheme is extending flood defences on the east bank of the Derwent while maintaining access to nearby businesses.
Piling and demolition work reported under way · evidence dated 2026-02-12
Responsible body: Derby City Council, Environment Agency and John Sisk and Son
Latest evidence: The February update confirms work on the second phase of Our City, Our River. A one-way system was being used on Meadow Road to keep business access during engineering work. Completed earlier protection is not evidence that this phase has finished.
Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- No verified current ward footprint is assigned. The named location or council-wide remit does not establish benefits in every ward.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Derby Riverside flood defences →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Pair flood protection with reliable business access →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target safety work where problems repeat →
How to track delivery →