People aged 65 or over
21.9%21 March 2021 · Wiltshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
111,527 out of 510,333.
Source and method →Salisbury · England
Community life
Wiltshire 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
4.2%21 March 2021 · Wiltshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
21,588 out of 510,333.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
46.6%21 March 2021 · Wiltshire
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
100,195 out of 215,081.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
13.6%21 March 2021 · Wiltshire
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
29,271 out of 215,081.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
14.4%21 March 2021 · Wiltshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
60,409 out of 419,114.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
34.2%21 March 2021 · Wiltshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
143,201 out of 419,114.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
2% to 7.4%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2% in Tidworth North & West to 7.4% in Melksham Forest — a gap of 5.5 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 98 of 98 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.
Source and method →
People aged 65 or over
4.3% to 33.9%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 4.3% in Tidworth North & West to 33.9% in Mere — a gap of 29.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 98 of 98 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.
Source and method →
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
8% to 22.7%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 8% in Chippenham Pewsham to 22.7% in Melksham Forest — a gap of 14.7 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 98 of 98 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.
Source and method →
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
7.7% to 23.5%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 7.7% in By Brook to 23.5% in Melksham Forest — a gap of 15.8 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 98 of 98 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.
Source and method →
Local places and initiatives
Ashley Road Open Space, Salisbury River Park
Salisbury River Park play area
An accessible play area shaped with local schoolchildren adds a usable community space to the wider river and flood-protection project.
Play area opened · evidence dated 2025-08-21
Responsible body: Salisbury City Council, Wiltshire Council and Environment Agency
What the source says: The city council confirms public opening on 21 August 2025 and consultation with the local disability group. The statement distinguishes this opening from the wider River Park programme.
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.
Salisbury celebrates opening of River Park play area →
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?
Keep Salisbury’s opened facilities accessible and useful →
Keep flood protection working after the opening →
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 →River Avon through central Salisbury, Fisherton Recreation Ground and Ashley Road
River Park flood protection and riverside habitats
The first phase reduced River Avon flood risk to more than 350 properties. Maintaining that protection matters alongside the paths, habitats and play facilities.
Most phase-one works reported complete in September 2024; later phases depend on funding · evidence dated 2024-09-13
Responsible body: Environment Agency, Wiltshire Council and Salisbury City Council
What the source says: The Environment Agency reported reduced flood risk to over 350 properties and most first-phase works complete, with planting still to follow. Additional phases were dependent on funding. Reduced risk is not a guarantee against flooding.
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 site or council-wide remit is not proof of benefits to every ward.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Celebrating Salisbury’s new River Park →
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?
Keep flood protection working after the opening →
Target safety work where problems repeat →
How to track delivery →