People aged 65 or over
16.4%21 March 2021 · Wolverhampton
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
43,282 out of 263,726.
Source and method →Wolverhampton · England
Community life
Wolverhampton 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
6.3%21 March 2021 · Wolverhampton
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
16,737 out of 263,727.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
59.7%21 March 2021 · Wolverhampton
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
62,727 out of 105,141.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
24.4%21 March 2021 · Wolverhampton
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
25,674 out of 105,141.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
25.3%21 March 2021 · Wolverhampton
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
52,803 out of 208,441.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
26.2%21 March 2021 · Wolverhampton
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
54,712 out of 208,441.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
4.8% to 8.3%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 4.8% in Tettenhall Regis to 8.3% in East Park — a gap of 3.5 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 20 of 20 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tettenhall Regis | 4.8% | 603 | 12,460 |
| Penn | 4.9% | 633 | 12,849 |
| St Peters | 5% | 683 | 13,742 |
| Merry Hill | 5.3% | 655 | 12,365 |
| Tettenhall Wightwick | 5.3% | 566 | 10,634 |
| Ettingshall North | 5.7% | 850 | 14,813 |
| Oxley | 5.8% | 819 | 14,076 |
| Park | 5.9% | 830 | 14,109 |
| Heath Town | 6.3% | 915 | 14,466 |
| Graiseley | 6.4% | 826 | 12,951 |
| Wednesfield South | 6.5% | 770 | 11,885 |
| Blakenhall | 6.7% | 841 | 12,614 |
| Fallings Park | 6.8% | 840 | 12,358 |
| Bushbury North | 6.8% | 919 | 13,419 |
| Bushbury South & Low Hill | 6.9% | 1,072 | 15,573 |
| Ettingshall South & Spring Vale | 7% | 914 | 13,086 |
| Bilston South | 7.1% | 1,027 | 14,425 |
| Bilston North | 7.4% | 1,011 | 13,748 |
| Wednesfield North | 7.5% | 841 | 11,193 |
| East Park | 8.3% | 1,071 | 12,896 |
People aged 65 or over
6.4% to 28.8%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 6.4% in St Peters to 28.8% in Tettenhall Wightwick — a gap of 22.5 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 20 of 20 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| St Peters | 6.4% | 874 | 13,747 |
| Heath Town | 10.5% | 1,524 | 14,478 |
| Ettingshall North | 10.8% | 1,608 | 14,834 |
| Bushbury South & Low Hill | 11.5% | 1,794 | 15,564 |
| Bilston South | 12.9% | 1,863 | 14,419 |
| Oxley | 13.9% | 1,961 | 14,072 |
| Graiseley | 14.1% | 1,828 | 12,921 |
| Park | 15.5% | 2,189 | 14,082 |
| Fallings Park | 15.9% | 1,958 | 12,345 |
| East Park | 16.4% | 2,114 | 12,861 |
| Blakenhall | 16.9% | 2,132 | 12,605 |
| Bilston North | 17.6% | 2,419 | 13,773 |
| Wednesfield South | 18.6% | 2,217 | 11,929 |
| Ettingshall South & Spring Vale | 19.2% | 2,511 | 13,103 |
| Bushbury North | 19.5% | 2,614 | 13,418 |
| Merry Hill | 20% | 2,484 | 12,393 |
| Wednesfield North | 22.2% | 2,488 | 11,206 |
| Penn | 22.2% | 2,858 | 12,863 |
| Tettenhall Regis | 22.3% | 2,775 | 12,471 |
| Tettenhall Wightwick | 28.8% | 3,072 | 10,656 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
16.5% to 31.5%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 16.5% in Penn to 31.5% in East Park — a gap of 15 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 20 of 20 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Penn | 16.5% | 1,735 | 10,534 |
| Tettenhall Regis | 17.3% | 1,778 | 10,274 |
| Tettenhall Wightwick | 18.8% | 1,689 | 8,978 |
| Merry Hill | 19.4% | 1,930 | 9,946 |
| Oxley | 20.7% | 2,309 | 11,158 |
| Park | 21.4% | 2,454 | 11,479 |
| Heath Town | 25.3% | 2,837 | 11,207 |
| Graiseley | 25.7% | 2,630 | 10,247 |
| Bushbury North | 25.7% | 2,759 | 10,727 |
| Fallings Park | 26.4% | 2,537 | 9,608 |
| St Peters | 26.5% | 2,811 | 10,601 |
| Ettingshall South & Spring Vale | 27.1% | 2,859 | 10,569 |
| Wednesfield South | 27.2% | 2,587 | 9,495 |
| Ettingshall North | 27.5% | 3,074 | 11,169 |
| Wednesfield North | 28.2% | 2,603 | 9,221 |
| Bushbury South & Low Hill | 29.7% | 3,341 | 11,233 |
| Bilston North | 30.4% | 3,318 | 10,907 |
| Blakenhall | 30.5% | 3,063 | 10,037 |
| Bilston South | 30.5% | 3,349 | 10,963 |
| East Park | 31.5% | 3,161 | 10,031 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
13.7% to 31.6%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 13.7% in Penn to 31.6% in East Park — a gap of 17.9 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 20 of 20 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Penn | 13.7% | 682 | 4,984 |
| Tettenhall Regis | 15.6% | 789 | 5,055 |
| Tettenhall Wightwick | 15.8% | 766 | 4,838 |
| Merry Hill | 20.5% | 1,056 | 5,163 |
| Oxley | 21.1% | 1,233 | 5,849 |
| Bushbury North | 23.3% | 1,292 | 5,534 |
| Park | 23.6% | 1,410 | 5,987 |
| Wednesfield South | 23.9% | 1,171 | 4,907 |
| Fallings Park | 25.1% | 1,198 | 4,782 |
| Ettingshall North | 25.2% | 1,412 | 5,614 |
| Ettingshall South & Spring Vale | 25.2% | 1,281 | 5,085 |
| St Peters | 26.1% | 1,286 | 4,932 |
| Graiseley | 26.7% | 1,423 | 5,330 |
| Wednesfield North | 27% | 1,317 | 4,883 |
| Blakenhall | 27.5% | 1,176 | 4,271 |
| Heath Town | 27.9% | 1,636 | 5,854 |
| Bilston North | 28% | 1,518 | 5,425 |
| Bilston South | 29.2% | 1,663 | 5,691 |
| Bushbury South & Low Hill | 29.8% | 1,709 | 5,728 |
| East Park | 31.6% | 1,657 | 5,244 |
Local places and initiatives
Wolverhampton city centre and adjacent regeneration areas
Our Future City Centre Plan
The plan identifies places for new homes, greener public spaces and better connections around the centre.
Regeneration framework approved · evidence dated 2026-09-03
Responsible body: City of Wolverhampton Council
Latest evidence: The council reports Cabinet approval on 2 September 2026. The identified development sites and potential homes are opportunities, not completed or fully funded schemes.
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 official project-to-ward mapping has been verified; no ward allocation is inferred from a city or street name.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
New regeneration blueprint for Wolverhampton city centre approved →
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?
Turn permission to reuse the former department store into a workable part of the centre →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Penn Fields pilot streets, including Cardiff Street, Manlove Street and Bristol Street
Powering Penn Fields neighbourhood energy pilot
The pilot combines household energy advice, monitoring and possible upgrades in a defined cluster of streets, with wider-area advice also offered.
Advice and monitoring pilot; autumn 2026 upgrades planned in March guidance · evidence dated 2026-03-02
Responsible body: City of Wolverhampton Council and delivery partners
Latest evidence: The council separates the main monitoring area from streets eligible only for wider advice. Its March guidance plans upgrades for eligible homes in autumn 2026; it does not confirm that all work is complete. Participation and monitoring depend on household consent.
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.
Powering Penn Fields neighbourhood energy pilot →
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?
Test neighbourhood upgrades before wider rollout →
Make room for homes people can afford →
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 →