People aged 65 or over
13.8%21 March 2021 · Milton Keynes
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
39,586 out of 287,062.
Source and method →Milton Keynes · England
Community life
Milton Keynes 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
4.1%21 March 2021 · Milton Keynes
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
11,907 out of 287,060.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
48.7%21 March 2021 · Milton Keynes
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
55,136 out of 113,102.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
16.2%21 March 2021 · Milton Keynes
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
18,359 out of 113,102.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
15.8%21 March 2021 · Milton Keynes
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
35,577 out of 224,831.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
35.8%21 March 2021 · Milton Keynes
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
80,545 out of 224,831.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
1.5% to 7.1%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 1.5% in Broughton & Moulsoe to 7.1% in Woughton & Fishermead — a gap of 5.6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 21 of 21 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Broughton & Moulsoe | 1.5% | 211 | 13,807 |
| Tattenhoe | 2.4% | 312 | 12,965 |
| Ouzel Valley | 2.8% | 418 | 14,787 |
| Danesborough | 3% | 210 | 7,070 |
| Watling | 3.1% | 549 | 17,665 |
| Stony Stratford | 3.5% | 368 | 10,572 |
| Olney & Rural | 3.6% | 465 | 12,811 |
| Furzton | 3.8% | 675 | 17,905 |
| Central Milton Keynes | 3.8% | 488 | 12,848 |
| Newport Pagnell | 4% | 616 | 15,593 |
| Walton | 4% | 585 | 14,784 |
| Hanslope | 4% | 196 | 4,912 |
| Campbell Park & Willen | 4.4% | 658 | 14,825 |
| Wolverton | 4.7% | 682 | 14,490 |
| New Bradwell | 4.7% | 517 | 10,980 |
| Bradwell | 4.8% | 721 | 15,111 |
| Bletchley South | 5.1% | 715 | 14,060 |
| Bletchley Park & Fenny Stratford | 5.1% | 805 | 15,681 |
| Great Linford | 5.1% | 709 | 13,805 |
| Bletchley West | 5.1% | 774 | 15,030 |
| Woughton & Fishermead | 7.1% | 1,236 | 17,376 |
People aged 65 or over
3.4% to 25.4%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 3.4% in Broughton & Moulsoe to 25.4% in Olney & Rural — a gap of 22.1 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 21 of 21 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Broughton & Moulsoe | 3.4% | 466 | 13,810 |
| Tattenhoe | 4.8% | 618 | 12,939 |
| Ouzel Valley | 8.3% | 1,226 | 14,775 |
| Central Milton Keynes | 8.7% | 1,117 | 12,856 |
| Watling | 10.1% | 1,786 | 17,683 |
| Woughton & Fishermead | 10.1% | 1,759 | 17,380 |
| Walton | 10.8% | 1,596 | 14,792 |
| Bletchley South | 11% | 1,546 | 14,073 |
| New Bradwell | 11.2% | 1,226 | 10,985 |
| Wolverton | 11.4% | 1,654 | 14,479 |
| Furzton | 11.8% | 2,120 | 17,930 |
| Campbell Park & Willen | 16.2% | 2,400 | 14,859 |
| Stony Stratford | 17.7% | 1,870 | 10,591 |
| Bradwell | 18.1% | 2,723 | 15,082 |
| Danesborough | 18.3% | 1,298 | 7,077 |
| Bletchley Park & Fenny Stratford | 18.4% | 2,885 | 15,717 |
| Bletchley West | 19.4% | 2,921 | 15,055 |
| Great Linford | 19.9% | 2,750 | 13,806 |
| Newport Pagnell | 21.1% | 3,287 | 15,582 |
| Hanslope | 22% | 1,081 | 4,916 |
| Olney & Rural | 25.4% | 3,252 | 12,786 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
9% to 27.3%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 9% in Tattenhoe to 27.3% in Woughton & Fishermead — a gap of 18.3 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 21 of 21 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tattenhoe | 9% | 858 | 9,516 |
| Broughton & Moulsoe | 10.1% | 987 | 9,754 |
| Ouzel Valley | 10.7% | 1,172 | 10,953 |
| Walton | 11.2% | 1,327 | 11,828 |
| Danesborough | 11.5% | 648 | 5,647 |
| Watling | 11.7% | 1,590 | 13,589 |
| Furzton | 12.6% | 1,776 | 14,095 |
| Olney & Rural | 12.7% | 1,350 | 10,630 |
| Hanslope | 13.2% | 531 | 4,013 |
| Newport Pagnell | 14.2% | 1,781 | 12,581 |
| Stony Stratford | 14.4% | 1,205 | 8,372 |
| Central Milton Keynes | 15.7% | 1,651 | 10,485 |
| Bradwell | 16.2% | 1,989 | 12,243 |
| Great Linford | 17.4% | 1,958 | 11,285 |
| New Bradwell | 17.7% | 1,493 | 8,419 |
| Campbell Park & Willen | 18.5% | 2,269 | 12,233 |
| Wolverton | 18.8% | 2,088 | 11,118 |
| Bletchley Park & Fenny Stratford | 20.3% | 2,568 | 12,646 |
| Bletchley West | 21.3% | 2,545 | 11,927 |
| Bletchley South | 21.4% | 2,219 | 10,349 |
| Woughton & Fishermead | 27.3% | 3,596 | 13,161 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
9% to 32%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 9% in Broughton & Moulsoe to 32% in Woughton & Fishermead — a gap of 23.1 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 21 of 21 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Broughton & Moulsoe | 9% | 434 | 4,839 |
| Danesborough | 9.8% | 293 | 2,997 |
| Olney & Rural | 10% | 550 | 5,497 |
| Tattenhoe | 10.4% | 467 | 4,502 |
| Hanslope | 11.3% | 235 | 2,085 |
| Watling | 11.7% | 761 | 6,526 |
| Ouzel Valley | 12.3% | 676 | 5,513 |
| Newport Pagnell | 12.5% | 815 | 6,522 |
| Walton | 12.6% | 761 | 6,058 |
| Furzton | 13.9% | 973 | 7,009 |
| Stony Stratford | 14.2% | 638 | 4,500 |
| Bradwell | 16.2% | 1,017 | 6,287 |
| Central Milton Keynes | 18.1% | 962 | 5,308 |
| Great Linford | 18.1% | 1,020 | 5,624 |
| Campbell Park & Willen | 18.5% | 1,121 | 6,061 |
| Bletchley Park & Fenny Stratford | 19.6% | 1,280 | 6,534 |
| New Bradwell | 20.2% | 856 | 4,248 |
| Wolverton | 20.3% | 1,145 | 5,640 |
| Bletchley West | 20.9% | 1,236 | 5,905 |
| Bletchley South | 21.5% | 1,095 | 5,086 |
| Woughton & Fishermead | 32% | 2,030 | 6,337 |
Local places and initiatives
Brunel Centre, Bletchley
Brunel Centre and former Wilko site
Proposed demolition would clear outdated buildings for a new town-centre development. The replacement design and delivery programme still need to follow.
Demolition procurement proposed · evidence dated 2026-08-27
Responsible body: Milton Keynes City Council
Latest evidence: The council announced a forthcoming formal decision and proposed September procurement. Demolition was expected in phases later in 2026, conditional on 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: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Major milestone in improvements to Bletchley town centre →
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?
Connect Bletchley’s site clearance to a usable town centre →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Civic building, Central Library and Woughton Leisure Centre, Milton Keynes
Preparing public buildings for a low-carbon heat network
The Civic building, Central Library and Woughton Leisure Centre are being prepared to use a shared heat supply rather than relying only on gas.
Preparation-works contract approved · evidence dated 2026-09-17
Responsible body: Milton Keynes City Council and Fair Heat
Latest evidence: The council secured £4.35 million of government funding and approved a contract for building works needed before connection. The announcement does not confirm that the network is operational. A wider network serving homes and businesses is a possible later development, not a delivered service.
Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- £4.35 million secured through the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme; not a final outturn or budget for a citywide household network.
- 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.
Preparing public buildings for a low-carbon heat network →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- 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?
Demonstrate reliable, affordable heat before expanding the network →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →