People aged 65 or over
14.1%21 March 2021 · Brighton and Hove
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
38,976 out of 277,104.
Source and method →Brighton and Hove · England
Community life
Brighton and Hove 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
5.1%21 March 2021 · Brighton and Hove
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
14,029 out of 277,103.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
52.1%21 March 2021 · Brighton and Hove
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
63,279 out of 121,401.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
19.1%21 March 2021 · Brighton and Hove
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
23,219 out of 121,401.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
12.4%21 March 2021 · Brighton and Hove
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
29,215 out of 235,367.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
44.5%21 March 2021 · Brighton and Hove
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
104,790 out of 235,367.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
3% to 8.4%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 3% in Westdene & Hove Park to 8.4% in Whitehawk & Marina — a gap of 5.4 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 23 of 23 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Westdene & Hove Park | 3% | 473 | 15,866 |
| Preston Park | 3% | 472 | 15,571 |
| Round Hill | 3.6% | 318 | 8,785 |
| Brunswick & Adelaide | 3.6% | 366 | 10,094 |
| Hanover & Elm Grove | 4.1% | 649 | 16,007 |
| Rottingdean & West Saltdean | 4.3% | 440 | 10,153 |
| Hollingdean & Fiveways | 4.4% | 671 | 15,409 |
| Central Hove | 4.4% | 476 | 10,698 |
| Wish | 4.5% | 456 | 10,201 |
| Patcham & Hollingbury | 4.8% | 731 | 15,374 |
| Regency | 4.8% | 474 | 9,949 |
| Coldean & Stanmer | 4.8% | 485 | 10,102 |
| Westbourne & Poets' Corner | 4.9% | 490 | 9,917 |
| West Hill & North Laine | 5.1% | 538 | 10,608 |
| Goldsmid | 5.1% | 732 | 14,297 |
| South Portslade | 5.2% | 515 | 9,890 |
| North Portslade | 5.4% | 543 | 10,137 |
| Hangleton & Knoll | 6.3% | 965 | 15,235 |
| Woodingdean | 6.5% | 635 | 9,786 |
| Moulsecoomb & Bevendean | 6.7% | 1,012 | 15,001 |
| Kemptown | 6.9% | 793 | 11,514 |
| Queen's Park | 7.3% | 759 | 10,330 |
| Whitehawk & Marina | 8.4% | 1,025 | 12,165 |
People aged 65 or over
7.3% to 28.9%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 7.3% in Hanover & Elm Grove to 28.9% in Rottingdean & West Saltdean — a gap of 21.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 23 of 23 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hanover & Elm Grove | 7.3% | 1,174 | 16,009 |
| Coldean & Stanmer | 7.4% | 750 | 10,103 |
| Round Hill | 7.7% | 678 | 8,770 |
| West Hill & North Laine | 7.9% | 835 | 10,593 |
| Brunswick & Adelaide | 9.5% | 954 | 10,088 |
| Regency | 9.8% | 976 | 9,933 |
| Moulsecoomb & Bevendean | 9.8% | 1,476 | 15,009 |
| Preston Park | 11.8% | 1,833 | 15,577 |
| Central Hove | 12.5% | 1,343 | 10,715 |
| Hollingdean & Fiveways | 12.6% | 1,948 | 15,435 |
| Queen's Park | 13.1% | 1,349 | 10,318 |
| Kemptown | 13.8% | 1,597 | 11,534 |
| Westbourne & Poets' Corner | 14.5% | 1,440 | 9,916 |
| Whitehawk & Marina | 14.8% | 1,808 | 12,206 |
| Goldsmid | 15.1% | 2,165 | 14,291 |
| South Portslade | 15.3% | 1,513 | 9,902 |
| North Portslade | 16.2% | 1,637 | 10,121 |
| Wish | 16.6% | 1,696 | 10,199 |
| Hangleton & Knoll | 17.4% | 2,642 | 15,210 |
| Westdene & Hove Park | 19.5% | 3,098 | 15,875 |
| Patcham & Hollingbury | 19.9% | 3,059 | 15,391 |
| Woodingdean | 21.6% | 2,112 | 9,765 |
| Rottingdean & West Saltdean | 28.9% | 2,938 | 10,161 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
5.8% to 23.6%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 5.8% in Round Hill to 23.6% in Whitehawk & Marina — a gap of 17.8 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 23 of 23 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Round Hill | 5.8% | 455 | 7,819 |
| Brunswick & Adelaide | 6.8% | 626 | 9,259 |
| Preston Park | 7.1% | 936 | 13,127 |
| West Hill & North Laine | 7.4% | 726 | 9,777 |
| Regency | 7.7% | 709 | 9,223 |
| Hanover & Elm Grove | 8.1% | 1,125 | 13,820 |
| Central Hove | 9.5% | 905 | 9,548 |
| Goldsmid | 9.6% | 1,193 | 12,390 |
| Westdene & Hove Park | 10% | 1,266 | 12,687 |
| Kemptown | 10.1% | 1,082 | 10,684 |
| Hollingdean & Fiveways | 10.9% | 1,348 | 12,394 |
| Westbourne & Poets' Corner | 11.1% | 913 | 8,231 |
| Coldean & Stanmer | 12.9% | 1,186 | 9,202 |
| Wish | 12.9% | 1,053 | 8,162 |
| Rottingdean & West Saltdean | 13.8% | 1,208 | 8,776 |
| Queen's Park | 14.2% | 1,248 | 8,796 |
| Patcham & Hollingbury | 15.1% | 1,882 | 12,475 |
| South Portslade | 16.7% | 1,334 | 8,003 |
| Moulsecoomb & Bevendean | 17.1% | 2,208 | 12,879 |
| North Portslade | 18.6% | 1,503 | 8,073 |
| Hangleton & Knoll | 19.3% | 2,338 | 12,102 |
| Woodingdean | 20.5% | 1,638 | 8,000 |
| Whitehawk & Marina | 23.6% | 2,346 | 9,928 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
9% to 33.6%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 9% in Westdene & Hove Park to 33.6% in Coldean & Stanmer — a gap of 24.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 23 of 23 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Westdene & Hove Park | 9% | 553 | 6,111 |
| Rottingdean & West Saltdean | 12.2% | 569 | 4,662 |
| Preston Park | 12.6% | 889 | 7,045 |
| Westbourne & Poets' Corner | 15% | 669 | 4,459 |
| Wish | 15.8% | 682 | 4,328 |
| Goldsmid | 16.2% | 1,145 | 7,083 |
| Patcham & Hollingbury | 16.3% | 1,018 | 6,235 |
| Brunswick & Adelaide | 16.5% | 960 | 5,805 |
| Central Hove | 17.7% | 1,057 | 5,967 |
| Hollingdean & Fiveways | 17.8% | 1,063 | 5,978 |
| Round Hill | 18.4% | 699 | 3,807 |
| Regency | 18.5% | 1,025 | 5,531 |
| Hanover & Elm Grove | 18.9% | 1,237 | 6,561 |
| South Portslade | 20.8% | 844 | 4,065 |
| Woodingdean | 20.8% | 818 | 3,928 |
| West Hill & North Laine | 20.9% | 1,161 | 5,563 |
| North Portslade | 21% | 867 | 4,126 |
| Kemptown | 21.3% | 1,394 | 6,534 |
| Hangleton & Knoll | 22.7% | 1,363 | 5,995 |
| Queen's Park | 27% | 1,275 | 4,719 |
| Moulsecoomb & Bevendean | 28.6% | 1,572 | 5,490 |
| Whitehawk & Marina | 31.1% | 1,650 | 5,300 |
| Coldean & Stanmer | 33.6% | 699 | 2,080 |
Local places and initiatives
King Alfred site, Hove seafront
King Alfred Leisure Centre replacement
A replacement for the ageing seafront leisure centre would provide accessible pools, fitness and family facilities. The design has been submitted for public scrutiny.
Final designs published for the planning process · evidence dated 2026-03-09
Responsible body: Brighton and Hove City Council
Latest evidence: The council published final proposals and invited planning comments. This is evidence of the proposed design, not proof of planning approval, a funded construction contract or an opening date.
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.
Final proposals for King Alfred Leisure Centre revealed →
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?
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 →Madeira Terrace and Madeira Drive, Brighton
Madeira Terrace restoration
Restoring the terrace and adding an accessible lift should make this stretch of seafront easier to reach while preserving its historic ironwork.
Restoration work in progress at the dated update · evidence dated 2026-02-25
Responsible body: Brighton and Hove City Council
Latest evidence: The council reports the lift structure progressing and repaired ironwork returning to site. It explains that extra testing was needed before original structural iron could be reused.
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.
Accessible lift takes shape as Madeira Terrace restoration progresses →
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 Madeira Terrace restoration deliver usable access →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →St James’s House; Nettleton Court and Dudeney Lodge; five Whitehawk blocks
Rehousing and replacing eight ageing tower blocks
Eight council blocks are to be replaced, with a rehousing policy agreed. Residents need clear support through moves; a decision to redevelop is not a completed replacement home.
Redevelopment and rehousing policy approved in March; a further masterplan decision is scheduled for November 2026 · evidence dated 2026-03-19
Responsible body: Brighton & Hove City Council
Latest evidence: Cabinet approved demolition and replacement of eight named blocks and the rehousing policy. Its decision names Hollingdean & Fiveways, Kemptown and Whitehawk & Marina as affected wards. A notice published 14 October lists the next masterplan and land-assembly decision for 12 November; it is not an approval.
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.
Cabinet decisions, 19 March 2026, item 155, pages 5–6 →
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?
Help households move safely before rebuilding the blocks →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →