People aged 65 or over
11.4%21 March 2021 · Cambridge
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
16,614 out of 145,674.
Source and method →Cambridge · England
Community life
Cambridge 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
3.2%21 March 2021 · Cambridge
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
4,716 out of 145,675.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
43.5%21 March 2021 · Cambridge
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
22,825 out of 52,472.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
13.3%21 March 2021 · Cambridge
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
6,957 out of 52,472.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
9.6%21 March 2021 · Cambridge
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
11,957 out of 124,765.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
55.8%21 March 2021 · Cambridge
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
69,666 out of 124,765.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
1.3% to 5.2%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 1.3% in Newnham to 5.2% in King's Hedges — a gap of 3.9 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 14 of 14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newnham | 1.3% | 147 | 11,374 |
| Castle | 1.6% | 124 | 7,862 |
| Market | 2.2% | 233 | 10,440 |
| West Chesterton | 2.3% | 208 | 8,904 |
| Petersfield | 2.5% | 270 | 10,936 |
| Trumpington | 2.5% | 314 | 12,393 |
| Romsey | 2.8% | 282 | 10,189 |
| Queen Edith's | 3.1% | 380 | 12,248 |
| Coleridge | 3.8% | 398 | 10,501 |
| Cherry Hinton | 4% | 375 | 9,343 |
| Arbury | 4.1% | 401 | 9,883 |
| East Chesterton | 4.8% | 470 | 9,716 |
| Abbey | 5% | 540 | 10,783 |
| King's Hedges | 5.2% | 572 | 11,100 |
People aged 65 or over
7.6% to 17.3%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 7.6% in Newnham to 17.3% in West Chesterton — a gap of 9.7 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 14 of 14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newnham | 7.6% | 864 | 11,373 |
| Market | 7.9% | 823 | 10,444 |
| Romsey | 8.9% | 909 | 10,189 |
| Trumpington | 9.1% | 1,126 | 12,393 |
| Castle | 9.4% | 737 | 7,863 |
| Petersfield | 10% | 1,092 | 10,934 |
| Abbey | 10.8% | 1,161 | 10,784 |
| Coleridge | 11.2% | 1,179 | 10,504 |
| King's Hedges | 12% | 1,327 | 11,101 |
| Queen Edith's | 12.7% | 1,561 | 12,248 |
| Arbury | 14% | 1,387 | 9,883 |
| East Chesterton | 15% | 1,460 | 9,715 |
| Cherry Hinton | 15.5% | 1,452 | 9,344 |
| West Chesterton | 17.3% | 1,538 | 8,904 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
1.5% to 17.2%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 1.5% in Newnham to 17.2% in King's Hedges — a gap of 15.7 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 14 of 14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newnham | 1.5% | 164 | 10,705 |
| Castle | 3.1% | 223 | 7,093 |
| Market | 3.4% | 332 | 9,780 |
| Petersfield | 5.1% | 492 | 9,727 |
| West Chesterton | 5.3% | 411 | 7,783 |
| Trumpington | 7.4% | 696 | 9,354 |
| Queen Edith's | 8.5% | 899 | 10,605 |
| Romsey | 9.8% | 874 | 8,900 |
| Coleridge | 11.8% | 1,079 | 9,138 |
| Cherry Hinton | 14.6% | 1,092 | 7,476 |
| East Chesterton | 16.3% | 1,321 | 8,096 |
| Arbury | 16.5% | 1,325 | 8,036 |
| Abbey | 16.5% | 1,477 | 8,939 |
| King's Hedges | 17.2% | 1,571 | 9,141 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
6.5% to 19.8%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 6.5% in Newnham to 19.8% in King's Hedges — a gap of 13.2 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 14 of 14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newnham | 6.5% | 108 | 1,649 |
| Castle | 7% | 172 | 2,452 |
| West Chesterton | 8.2% | 304 | 3,723 |
| Market | 9.5% | 254 | 2,660 |
| Petersfield | 10.1% | 439 | 4,330 |
| Trumpington | 10.2% | 495 | 4,870 |
| Romsey | 11.5% | 463 | 4,041 |
| Queen Edith's | 13.1% | 543 | 4,155 |
| Coleridge | 13.9% | 548 | 3,934 |
| Cherry Hinton | 15.3% | 572 | 3,747 |
| Arbury | 17.4% | 697 | 4,001 |
| Abbey | 17.5% | 776 | 4,440 |
| East Chesterton | 17.7% | 721 | 4,084 |
| King's Hedges | 19.8% | 868 | 4,389 |
Local places and initiatives
Market Square and surrounding public spaces
Civic Quarter: Market Square
A more accessible surface, better stalls and improved services would support the seven-day market. Keeping traders operating during construction is part of the proposal.
Planning permission granted; final go-ahead still required · evidence dated 2026-09-07
Responsible body: Cambridge City Council
What the source says: The council reports approval on 2 September 2026 but says this does not itself mean work will start. Cabinet and Full Council were still to decide whether to proceed; January 2027 was a possible start.
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.
Planning permission granted for Cambridge Market Square improvements →
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?
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Cowley Road wastewater-treatment site, North East Cambridge
Hartree and North East Cambridge
The planned neighbourhood relied on moving the wastewater treatment plant. The government’s refusal to fund that move means the proposed scheme cannot proceed as planned.
Cannot proceed as proposed after funding refusal · evidence dated 2025-08-15
Responsible body: Cambridge City Council and Anglian Water
What the source says: The council says relocation funding will not be made available and its Hartree proposals cannot be delivered. Permission to move the plant did not secure the money to carry out the move.
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.
Government decision not to fund Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant relocation →
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?
Reset the Hartree plan after the funding refusal →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Queen’s Meadow, Hawthorns, Coldham’s Lane and three smaller sites
Small-site council homes programme
More than 90 council homes are proposed or progressing across six sites, with larger family homes a priority. Each site still needs its own approvals and delivery checks.
Proposals and progress updates approved in July 2026; mixed delivery stages · evidence dated 2026-07-08
Responsible body: Cambridge City Council
What the source says: The July update separates three new proposals from three sites already underway. It identifies Queen’s Meadow, the vacant Hawthorns Community Centre and the Horizon Resource Centre site, plus work in East Chesterton, Trumpington and Coleridge. The headline is not a count of completed homes.
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: the named sites or programme area have not been matched to the ward boundaries used by these statistics. No ward-wide effect is inferred.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
90+ new council homes set to be built across six Cambridge sites →
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?
Use small sites to provide the family homes people need →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →