People aged 65 or over
24%21 March 2021 · Lichfield
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
25,529 out of 106,436.
Source and method →Lichfield · England
Community life
Lichfield 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%21 March 2021 · Lichfield
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
5,313 out of 106,436.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
48%21 March 2021 · Lichfield
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
21,899 out of 45,630.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
15.2%21 March 2021 · Lichfield
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
6,931 out of 45,630.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
17.1%21 March 2021 · Lichfield
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
15,110 out of 88,596.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
33.6%21 March 2021 · Lichfield
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
29,789 out of 88,596.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
2.9% to 6.9%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.9% in Boley Park to 6.9% in Stowe — a gap of 4 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 22 of 22 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boley Park | 2.9% | 112 | 3,852 |
| Whittington & Streethay | 2.9% | 209 | 7,146 |
| Bourne Vale | 3% | 91 | 3,009 |
| Longdon | 3.4% | 68 | 2,025 |
| Highfield | 3.4% | 153 | 4,511 |
| Alrewas & Fradley | 3.6% | 240 | 6,716 |
| Little Aston & Stonnall | 3.7% | 180 | 4,907 |
| St John's | 3.8% | 226 | 5,924 |
| Mease Valley | 4% | 80 | 2,018 |
| Shenstone | 4.2% | 93 | 2,195 |
| Leomansley | 4.4% | 317 | 7,276 |
| Colton & the Ridwares | 4.8% | 110 | 2,294 |
| Summerfield & All Saints | 5.4% | 338 | 6,234 |
| Chase Terrace | 5.5% | 255 | 4,665 |
| Hammerwich with Wall | 5.6% | 235 | 4,199 |
| Fazeley | 6% | 276 | 4,614 |
| Chadsmead | 6.2% | 288 | 4,621 |
| Curborough | 6.7% | 285 | 4,273 |
| Chasetown | 6.7% | 333 | 4,966 |
| Armitage with Handsacre | 6.8% | 542 | 8,018 |
| Boney Hay & Central | 6.8% | 429 | 6,344 |
| Stowe | 6.9% | 457 | 6,634 |
People aged 65 or over
15.8% to 32.8%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 15.8% in Chasetown to 32.8% in Hammerwich with Wall — a gap of 17 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 22 of 22 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chasetown | 15.8% | 785 | 4,965 |
| Whittington & Streethay | 18.3% | 1,311 | 7,146 |
| Bourne Vale | 19.7% | 592 | 3,009 |
| Alrewas & Fradley | 19.9% | 1,338 | 6,717 |
| Curborough | 20.5% | 878 | 4,273 |
| Chadsmead | 21% | 971 | 4,622 |
| St John's | 21.2% | 1,256 | 5,924 |
| Summerfield & All Saints | 21.8% | 1,362 | 6,234 |
| Armitage with Handsacre | 22.2% | 1,780 | 8,016 |
| Fazeley | 23.1% | 1,066 | 4,615 |
| Chase Terrace | 23.7% | 1,104 | 4,666 |
| Leomansley | 23.9% | 1,736 | 7,276 |
| Mease Valley | 25.4% | 512 | 2,019 |
| Highfield | 27.1% | 1,222 | 4,513 |
| Colton & the Ridwares | 27.3% | 626 | 2,294 |
| Boney Hay & Central | 28.5% | 1,807 | 6,348 |
| Little Aston & Stonnall | 28.8% | 1,413 | 4,906 |
| Stowe | 29.5% | 1,957 | 6,635 |
| Boley Park | 29.9% | 1,153 | 3,852 |
| Shenstone | 30.3% | 666 | 2,195 |
| Longdon | 30.6% | 619 | 2,023 |
| Hammerwich with Wall | 32.8% | 1,377 | 4,196 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
10.2% to 24.1%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 10.2% in Boley Park to 24.1% in Curborough — a gap of 13.9 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 22 of 22 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boley Park | 10.2% | 336 | 3,286 |
| St John's | 11.2% | 543 | 4,837 |
| Whittington & Streethay | 11.3% | 656 | 5,820 |
| Shenstone | 12.8% | 238 | 1,859 |
| Leomansley | 12.8% | 772 | 6,018 |
| Alrewas & Fradley | 13.1% | 714 | 5,440 |
| Longdon | 13.5% | 241 | 1,782 |
| Highfield | 14.7% | 564 | 3,832 |
| Little Aston & Stonnall | 15.4% | 641 | 4,160 |
| Bourne Vale | 16.5% | 432 | 2,623 |
| Colton & the Ridwares | 16.8% | 333 | 1,977 |
| Mease Valley | 17.4% | 297 | 1,707 |
| Armitage with Handsacre | 18.7% | 1,228 | 6,564 |
| Chasetown | 18.9% | 737 | 3,907 |
| Stowe | 18.9% | 1,096 | 5,791 |
| Chase Terrace | 19.7% | 775 | 3,934 |
| Chadsmead | 19.7% | 721 | 3,658 |
| Summerfield & All Saints | 20.1% | 1,015 | 5,052 |
| Hammerwich with Wall | 21.3% | 777 | 3,646 |
| Boney Hay & Central | 22.9% | 1,239 | 5,400 |
| Fazeley | 24.1% | 918 | 3,817 |
| Curborough | 24.1% | 838 | 3,479 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
7.5% to 25.1%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 7.5% in Boley Park to 25.1% in Curborough — a gap of 17.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 22 of 22 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boley Park | 7.5% | 132 | 1,749 |
| Whittington & Streethay | 9.4% | 274 | 2,930 |
| Longdon | 9.6% | 84 | 873 |
| Little Aston & Stonnall | 9.9% | 189 | 1,901 |
| Shenstone | 10% | 94 | 936 |
| Bourne Vale | 10.5% | 101 | 966 |
| Mease Valley | 11% | 92 | 833 |
| Highfield | 11.4% | 213 | 1,874 |
| Colton & the Ridwares | 11.4% | 111 | 971 |
| St John's | 11.6% | 294 | 2,539 |
| Alrewas & Fradley | 11.6% | 321 | 2,760 |
| Leomansley | 13.3% | 449 | 3,384 |
| Hammerwich with Wall | 13.7% | 244 | 1,782 |
| Armitage with Handsacre | 16% | 548 | 3,428 |
| Chase Terrace | 16.4% | 327 | 1,999 |
| Stowe | 17.9% | 581 | 3,238 |
| Summerfield & All Saints | 19.2% | 517 | 2,695 |
| Chadsmead | 19.3% | 377 | 1,950 |
| Boney Hay & Central | 21% | 594 | 2,824 |
| Chasetown | 21.4% | 457 | 2,135 |
| Fazeley | 23.2% | 465 | 2,004 |
| Curborough | 25.1% | 467 | 1,859 |
Local places and initiatives
Former Debenhams, Lichfield city centre
Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment
The empty department store is being converted into an Everyman cinema and hospitality space. Extra costs and ownership arrangements require council decisions.
Construction advanced; additional investment proposed · evidence dated 2026-07-06
Responsible body: Lichfield District Council and leisure operators
What the source says: The update says construction is advanced, followed by operator fit-out and an expected spring 2027 cinema opening. A proposed £5.56 million combines completion costs and acquiring full ownership; it is not recorded as an approved grant.
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.
Councillors to consider investment proposals for former Debenhams redevelopment →
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 the cinema’s opening work to its surrounding routes →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Birmingham Road site between City Station and the centre
Birmingham Road Linear Park
A green walking route would connect the railway station, cinema, theatre and future homes, with seating and natural play spaces.
Design vision published; planning outcome unverified · evidence dated 2025-11-18
Responsible body: Lichfield District Council
What the source says: The council published a landscaped route around 23 metres wide and said planning permission would be sought in early 2026. This source does not confirm that later approval or construction.
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.
Our vision for new Linear Park is unveiled →
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 the cinema’s opening work to its surrounding routes →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Christian Fields, Lichfield
Christian Fields access and green-space improvements
Partners are improving this local green space and exploring better paths, signs, habitats and inclusive outdoor activities.
Upper stairs restored; entrance works and further proposals described · evidence dated 2026-03-31
Responsible body: Lichfield District Council and Lichfield City Council with community partners
What the source says: The March update confirms restoration of the upper staircases and work on the main entrance. Lower-stair improvements were planned, while pathways, outdoor learning and the leisure-centre underpass remained options being explored. These stages should not be presented as one completed scheme.
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.
Christian Fields access and green-space 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?
Make Christian Fields accessible beyond the entrance →
Plan homes and care around an older population →
Bring support closer to people in poor health →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →