People aged 65 or over
13.3%21 March 2021 · Salford
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
35,924 out of 269,923.
Source and method →Salford · England
Community life
Salford 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%21 March 2021 · Salford
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
16,087 out of 269,923.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
53.6%21 March 2021 · Salford
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
61,659 out of 115,116.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
21.3%21 March 2021 · Salford
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
24,489 out of 115,116.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
19.7%21 March 2021 · Salford
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
42,829 out of 216,923.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
33.5%21 March 2021 · Salford
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
72,678 out of 216,923.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
1.6% to 8.6%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 1.6% in Quays to 8.6% in Little Hulton — a gap of 7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quays | 1.6% | 150 | 9,306 |
| Blackfriars & Trinity | 3.2% | 344 | 10,656 |
| Boothstown & Ellenbrook | 3.9% | 487 | 12,517 |
| Kersal & Broughton Park | 4.2% | 673 | 16,039 |
| Worsley & Westwood Park | 4.7% | 570 | 12,032 |
| Walkden South | 5.3% | 619 | 11,715 |
| Claremont | 5.3% | 706 | 13,241 |
| Swinton Park | 5.6% | 716 | 12,897 |
| Barton & Winton | 5.9% | 926 | 15,754 |
| Cadishead & Lower Irlam | 5.9% | 720 | 12,208 |
| Ordsall | 6% | 609 | 10,094 |
| Swinton & Wardley | 6.2% | 775 | 12,456 |
| Broughton | 6.6% | 1,126 | 16,957 |
| Eccles | 6.7% | 968 | 14,523 |
| Weaste & Seedley | 6.9% | 1,132 | 16,357 |
| Pendlebury & Clifton | 7% | 977 | 13,935 |
| Pendleton & Charlestown | 7.3% | 1,260 | 17,154 |
| Higher Irlam & Peel Green | 7.4% | 1,038 | 14,035 |
| Walkden North | 7.7% | 1,041 | 13,555 |
| Little Hulton | 8.6% | 1,249 | 14,496 |
People aged 65 or over
2.5% to 21.2%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 2.5% in Blackfriars & Trinity to 21.2% in Boothstown & Ellenbrook — a gap of 18.7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blackfriars & Trinity | 2.5% | 266 | 10,655 |
| Quays | 2.6% | 246 | 9,306 |
| Ordsall | 7.8% | 785 | 10,094 |
| Broughton | 8.2% | 1,384 | 16,958 |
| Pendleton & Charlestown | 8.6% | 1,482 | 17,155 |
| Weaste & Seedley | 11% | 1,802 | 16,356 |
| Kersal & Broughton Park | 11.8% | 1,894 | 16,039 |
| Barton & Winton | 12% | 1,884 | 15,757 |
| Little Hulton | 12.6% | 1,825 | 14,492 |
| Walkden North | 13.8% | 1,871 | 13,556 |
| Pendlebury & Clifton | 14.5% | 2,014 | 13,937 |
| Higher Irlam & Peel Green | 14.9% | 2,088 | 14,038 |
| Claremont | 16.9% | 2,243 | 13,241 |
| Eccles | 17.1% | 2,485 | 14,524 |
| Cadishead & Lower Irlam | 17.3% | 2,114 | 12,212 |
| Swinton Park | 17.5% | 2,253 | 12,897 |
| Swinton & Wardley | 18.1% | 2,251 | 12,456 |
| Worsley & Westwood Park | 18.3% | 2,196 | 12,032 |
| Walkden South | 18.7% | 2,193 | 11,715 |
| Boothstown & Ellenbrook | 21.2% | 2,652 | 12,515 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
4.2% to 29.8%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 4.2% in Quays to 29.8% in Broughton — a gap of 25.6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quays | 4.2% | 370 | 8,826 |
| Blackfriars & Trinity | 8.4% | 833 | 9,920 |
| Boothstown & Ellenbrook | 13.1% | 1,340 | 10,196 |
| Walkden South | 15.8% | 1,515 | 9,577 |
| Worsley & Westwood Park | 17.8% | 1,698 | 9,566 |
| Claremont | 18.2% | 1,983 | 10,900 |
| Ordsall | 19.1% | 1,653 | 8,670 |
| Eccles | 19.3% | 2,363 | 12,227 |
| Pendleton & Charlestown | 20.1% | 2,922 | 14,523 |
| Swinton Park | 20.3% | 2,096 | 10,338 |
| Cadishead & Lower Irlam | 20.7% | 2,012 | 9,718 |
| Swinton & Wardley | 20.8% | 2,120 | 10,169 |
| Barton & Winton | 21.2% | 2,658 | 12,567 |
| Weaste & Seedley | 21.3% | 2,840 | 13,327 |
| Walkden North | 22.2% | 2,356 | 10,590 |
| Higher Irlam & Peel Green | 22.6% | 2,488 | 11,001 |
| Pendlebury & Clifton | 22.9% | 2,571 | 11,212 |
| Kersal & Broughton Park | 23.9% | 2,666 | 11,138 |
| Little Hulton | 26.5% | 2,791 | 10,549 |
| Broughton | 29.8% | 3,551 | 11,907 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
7.5% to 32%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 7.5% in Quays to 32% in Little Hulton — a gap of 24.5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quays | 7.5% | 386 | 5,141 |
| Boothstown & Ellenbrook | 10.9% | 563 | 5,169 |
| Blackfriars & Trinity | 12.8% | 754 | 5,887 |
| Walkden South | 16.1% | 828 | 5,157 |
| Worsley & Westwood Park | 16.5% | 799 | 4,848 |
| Claremont | 18.4% | 1,018 | 5,520 |
| Swinton Park | 19.5% | 1,050 | 5,374 |
| Cadishead & Lower Irlam | 19.5% | 1,022 | 5,229 |
| Ordsall | 20.7% | 1,022 | 4,943 |
| Swinton & Wardley | 20.7% | 1,142 | 5,514 |
| Eccles | 20.9% | 1,414 | 6,755 |
| Kersal & Broughton Park | 21.4% | 1,136 | 5,302 |
| Barton & Winton | 22.9% | 1,633 | 7,125 |
| Pendlebury & Clifton | 23.6% | 1,364 | 5,769 |
| Higher Irlam & Peel Green | 24.3% | 1,431 | 5,878 |
| Weaste & Seedley | 24.6% | 1,751 | 7,124 |
| Walkden North | 24.9% | 1,492 | 5,982 |
| Broughton | 30.3% | 1,886 | 6,227 |
| Pendleton & Charlestown | 30.5% | 1,966 | 6,454 |
| Little Hulton | 32% | 1,832 | 5,718 |
Local places and initiatives
Middlewood Locks, Salford
Middlewood Locks
Homes around the canal have opened in phases, with further development still proposed. Public spaces connect the completed neighbourhood.
First three phases completed; later phases have outline consent · source does not state a status date
Responsible body: Development partners with Salford City Council
Latest evidence: The council confirms phases one and two complete and the Railings third phase completed in 2025. Remaining phases have outline consent rather than completed buildings.
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.
Regenerating the city: Middlewood Locks →
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 →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Eccles town centre, within the City of Salford
Eccles town-centre renewal
The first demolition phase is complete, but the new town-centre plan is still being developed. Existing shops need access and support while later proposals take shape.
First demolition phase complete; masterplan being prepared after consultation · evidence dated 2026-06-18
Responsible body: Salford City Council and Muse
Latest evidence: The council records first-phase demolition complete in December 2025 and consultation ending in March 2026. It expected a final masterplan in autumn 2026, with later construction still ahead. Charles House acquisition and proposed demolition are separate steps.
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.
Eccles regeneration: council update of 18 June 2026 →
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 Eccles useful while the new town centre takes shape →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →