People aged 65 or over
16.6%21 March 2021 · Exeter
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
21,726 out of 130,709.
Source and method →Exeter · England
Community life
Exeter 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
4.6%21 March 2021 · Exeter
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
6,005 out of 130,709.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
50.2%21 March 2021 · Exeter
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
26,373 out of 52,554.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
17%21 March 2021 · Exeter
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
8,934 out of 52,554.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
13.5%21 March 2021 · Exeter
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
15,078 out of 111,331.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
34.7%21 March 2021 · Exeter
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
38,612 out of 111,331.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
2.8% to 6.4%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.8% in Duryard and St James to 6.4% in Mincinglake and Whipton — a gap of 3.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 13 of 13 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duryard and St James | 2.8% | 417 | 15,147 |
| Pennsylvania | 3.9% | 407 | 10,531 |
| St Loyes | 3.9% | 370 | 9,387 |
| Newtown and St Leonard's | 4.3% | 469 | 10,849 |
| Topsham | 4.4% | 445 | 10,040 |
| Heavitree | 4.4% | 411 | 9,247 |
| Exwick | 4.7% | 461 | 9,767 |
| Alphington | 4.9% | 405 | 8,266 |
| Pinhoe | 5% | 475 | 9,588 |
| St David's | 5% | 529 | 10,529 |
| St Thomas | 5.3% | 518 | 9,845 |
| Priory | 6.1% | 535 | 8,719 |
| Mincinglake and Whipton | 6.4% | 562 | 8,793 |
People aged 65 or over
9% to 23.6%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 9% in Duryard and St James to 23.6% in Alphington — a gap of 14.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 13 of 13 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duryard and St James | 9% | 1,364 | 15,147 |
| St David's | 12.6% | 1,326 | 10,533 |
| Newtown and St Leonard's | 14.2% | 1,539 | 10,849 |
| Pennsylvania | 14.3% | 1,508 | 10,535 |
| Exwick | 16% | 1,566 | 9,769 |
| St Loyes | 17.4% | 1,635 | 9,387 |
| Pinhoe | 17.8% | 1,703 | 9,588 |
| Mincinglake and Whipton | 18.5% | 1,628 | 8,792 |
| Heavitree | 18.6% | 1,722 | 9,247 |
| St Thomas | 18.9% | 1,857 | 9,844 |
| Priory | 19% | 1,659 | 8,719 |
| Topsham | 22.7% | 2,274 | 10,039 |
| Alphington | 23.6% | 1,947 | 8,265 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
5% to 22.1%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 5% in Duryard and St James to 22.1% in Priory — a gap of 17.1 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 13 of 13 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duryard and St James | 5% | 726 | 14,472 |
| Newtown and St Leonard's | 9.1% | 879 | 9,617 |
| St David's | 10.4% | 1,010 | 9,698 |
| Pennsylvania | 10.6% | 961 | 9,069 |
| Heavitree | 12.8% | 1,008 | 7,857 |
| Topsham | 13.1% | 1,075 | 8,186 |
| St Loyes | 14.9% | 1,146 | 7,698 |
| Pinhoe | 15.3% | 1,157 | 7,542 |
| Alphington | 17.2% | 1,196 | 6,947 |
| St Thomas | 17.3% | 1,418 | 8,203 |
| Exwick | 17.6% | 1,392 | 7,909 |
| Mincinglake and Whipton | 21.9% | 1,544 | 7,040 |
| Priory | 22.1% | 1,566 | 7,089 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
13.3% to 23.8%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 13.3% in Duryard and St James to 23.8% in Mincinglake and Whipton — a gap of 10.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 13 of 13 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duryard and St James | 13.3% | 455 | 3,433 |
| Topsham | 14% | 616 | 4,399 |
| St Loyes | 14.2% | 564 | 3,984 |
| Heavitree | 14.8% | 577 | 3,900 |
| Pennsylvania | 14.8% | 610 | 4,115 |
| Pinhoe | 15.6% | 606 | 3,880 |
| Alphington | 16.1% | 572 | 3,554 |
| St Thomas | 16.5% | 707 | 4,294 |
| Newtown and St Leonard's | 17.3% | 787 | 4,559 |
| Exwick | 18.6% | 791 | 4,245 |
| St David's | 19.8% | 944 | 4,778 |
| Priory | 22.2% | 820 | 3,699 |
| Mincinglake and Whipton | 23.8% | 885 | 3,713 |
Local places and initiatives
Water Lane, Exeter
Liveable Water Lane
The design guide sets expectations for streets, buildings and public spaces as industrial land becomes a new neighbourhood.
Design guide adopted; individual schemes need their own decisions · source does not state a status date
Responsible body: Exeter City Council
Latest evidence: The council confirms adoption in 2024 after consultation. The document guides planning applications for the Water Lane redevelopment area; it is not evidence that the whole neighbourhood is under construction.
Next thing to establish: What dated decision or progress report confirms the current stage?
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.
Liveable Water Lane supplementary planning document (2024) →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
- 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 room for homes people can afford →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Wonford Community and Leisure Centre
Wonford Community Wellbeing Hub
The ageing community and leisure centre would be renewed, with spaces for local groups, activity and access to Ludwell Valley Park.
Council approved recommendations; next delivery steps required · evidence dated 2026-03-24
Responsible body: Exeter City Council and community partners
Latest evidence: The decision record confirms approval on 24 March. It identifies further design, procurement and business-case work, matched-funding requirements and a summer 2028 delivery condition. It does not confirm a building contract.
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.
Decision: Wonford Community Wellbeing Hub →
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 Wonford’s next steps tied to a workable delivery plan →
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 →Exeter city; planned expansion beyond the city centre
Exeter community safety team
A city-centre safety pilot was approved to become permanent and cover the whole city. Recruitment and training were underway in the May update.
Permanent citywide service approved; recruitment and training reported · evidence dated 2026-06-22
Responsible body: Exeter City Council
Latest evidence: The council’s May table records a January 2026 decision to make the community safety pilot permanent and expand it across Exeter. It reports recruitment and training, not a measured reduction in crime or anti-social behaviour.
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.
Executive papers, 22 June 2026: May progress report, page 113 →
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?
Show where the expanded safety service makes a difference →
Target safety work where problems repeat →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →