People aged 65 or over
16.7%21 March 2021 · Gloucester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
22,118 out of 132,416.
Source and method →Gloucester · England
Community life
Gloucester 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
4.9%21 March 2021 · Gloucester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
6,539 out of 132,416.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
51.1%21 March 2021 · Gloucester
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
28,292 out of 55,407.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
17.3%21 March 2021 · Gloucester
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
9,596 out of 55,407.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
18.2%21 March 2021 · Gloucester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
19,473 out of 106,939.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
27.4%21 March 2021 · Gloucester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
29,295 out of 106,939.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
2.9% to 7.3%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.9% in Abbeymead to 7.3% in Podsmead — a gap of 4.3 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abbeymead | 2.9% | 179 | 6,088 |
| Kingsway | 3.1% | 218 | 7,043 |
| Longlevens | 3.6% | 340 | 9,535 |
| Quedgeley Severn Vale | 3.7% | 226 | 6,189 |
| Barnwood | 3.7% | 246 | 6,736 |
| Quedgeley Fieldcourt | 4% | 301 | 7,499 |
| Elmbridge | 4.3% | 278 | 6,466 |
| Abbeydale | 4.5% | 322 | 7,151 |
| Grange | 5% | 358 | 7,097 |
| Hucclecote | 5.3% | 327 | 6,210 |
| Moreland | 5.4% | 569 | 10,608 |
| Kingsholm and Wotton | 5.4% | 386 | 7,097 |
| Westgate | 5.6% | 542 | 9,695 |
| Barton and Tredworth | 5.6% | 672 | 12,004 |
| Coney Hill | 6.3% | 213 | 3,401 |
| Tuffley | 6.4% | 396 | 6,173 |
| Matson, Robinswood and White City | 7.2% | 716 | 9,963 |
| Podsmead | 7.3% | 252 | 3,464 |
People aged 65 or over
3.6% to 30.1%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 3.6% in Kingsway to 30.1% in Hucclecote — a gap of 26.4 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kingsway | 3.6% | 255 | 7,043 |
| Barton and Tredworth | 10.1% | 1,218 | 12,002 |
| Moreland | 12.1% | 1,279 | 10,605 |
| Coney Hill | 12.9% | 438 | 3,403 |
| Quedgeley Severn Vale | 13.3% | 824 | 6,190 |
| Abbeymead | 13.9% | 845 | 6,089 |
| Westgate | 14.4% | 1,392 | 9,694 |
| Quedgeley Fieldcourt | 14.5% | 1,088 | 7,498 |
| Matson, Robinswood and White City | 15.1% | 1,500 | 9,961 |
| Kingsholm and Wotton | 17.3% | 1,227 | 7,099 |
| Podsmead | 18.1% | 626 | 3,465 |
| Barnwood | 18.4% | 1,240 | 6,735 |
| Elmbridge | 19.8% | 1,282 | 6,464 |
| Longlevens | 22.7% | 2,167 | 9,537 |
| Tuffley | 23.2% | 1,430 | 6,172 |
| Grange | 23.6% | 1,674 | 7,096 |
| Abbeydale | 24.8% | 1,770 | 7,151 |
| Hucclecote | 30.1% | 1,867 | 6,211 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
9.8% to 28.1%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 9.8% in Abbeymead to 28.1% in Coney Hill — a gap of 18.3 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abbeymead | 9.8% | 487 | 4,958 |
| Kingsway | 10.7% | 531 | 4,958 |
| Longlevens | 12.3% | 983 | 7,965 |
| Quedgeley Severn Vale | 12.4% | 622 | 5,030 |
| Barnwood | 12.6% | 697 | 5,537 |
| Elmbridge | 15% | 788 | 5,262 |
| Quedgeley Fieldcourt | 15.9% | 935 | 5,872 |
| Abbeydale | 17.1% | 1,006 | 5,871 |
| Kingsholm and Wotton | 17.2% | 1,058 | 6,138 |
| Hucclecote | 17.3% | 909 | 5,253 |
| Westgate | 17.4% | 1,474 | 8,450 |
| Grange | 21.3% | 1,240 | 5,808 |
| Moreland | 21.5% | 1,799 | 8,371 |
| Podsmead | 23.8% | 657 | 2,761 |
| Tuffley | 23.8% | 1,206 | 5,068 |
| Barton and Tredworth | 25% | 2,312 | 9,237 |
| Matson, Robinswood and White City | 26.1% | 2,026 | 7,752 |
| Coney Hill | 28.1% | 743 | 2,642 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
8.7% to 28.2%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 8.7% in Abbeymead to 28.2% in Matson, Robinswood and White City — a gap of 19.5 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 18 of 18 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abbeymead | 8.7% | 228 | 2,607 |
| Longlevens | 9.7% | 390 | 4,019 |
| Quedgeley Severn Vale | 9.9% | 251 | 2,537 |
| Abbeydale | 10.9% | 319 | 2,927 |
| Elmbridge | 12.3% | 320 | 2,597 |
| Barnwood | 12.4% | 345 | 2,774 |
| Kingsway | 12.5% | 315 | 2,511 |
| Quedgeley Fieldcourt | 13.2% | 414 | 3,145 |
| Hucclecote | 14.3% | 404 | 2,829 |
| Grange | 17.2% | 539 | 3,141 |
| Kingsholm and Wotton | 17.6% | 558 | 3,179 |
| Moreland | 19.9% | 835 | 4,206 |
| Tuffley | 21.1% | 534 | 2,532 |
| Westgate | 22.1% | 1,060 | 4,792 |
| Barton and Tredworth | 24.9% | 1,147 | 4,607 |
| Coney Hill | 26.3% | 336 | 1,280 |
| Podsmead | 27% | 397 | 1,472 |
| Matson, Robinswood and White City | 28.2% | 1,198 | 4,246 |
Local places and initiatives
Greyfriars Quarter, between the Forum and Gloucester Docks
Greyfriars: first phase
Plans would move Eastgate Market to Bell Walk, reuse historic buildings and improve walking routes and outdoor space.
First-phase planning application submitted · evidence dated 2026-09-03
Responsible body: Gloucester City Council
Latest evidence: The submitted phase includes market relocation, Addison’s Folly, the former Pavilion Bowls Club and outdoor space. The performance venue requires a separate future application.
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.
Phase 1 planning application for transformational Greyfriars project →
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?
Protect market trading through the Greyfriars changes →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Gloucester city
Council-owned temporary homes and routes to settled housing
Gloucester is buying temporary accommodation to reduce reliance on external providers while helping households move into longer-term homes.
Acquisition programme operating; July update reports estimated savings · evidence dated 2026-07-08
Responsible body: Gloucester City Council
Latest evidence: The council estimates £400,000 of savings for 2025/26; this is not a verified final outturn. Planned extra capacity includes 30 bed spaces and nine self-contained units, which are different measures. Separately, revised landlord incentives helped secure 44 tenancies for homeless households in 2025/26.
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.
Council-owned temporary homes and routes to settled housing →
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 better temporary homes to support a route out of homelessness →
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 →