This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 489 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28325
2007 IMD Rank: 29006
2010 IMD Rank: 28814
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -491 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29941
2007 IMD Rank: 31243
2010 IMD Rank: 29450
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4124 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15923
2007 IMD Rank: 18799
2010 IMD Rank: 20047
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5127 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17376
2007 IMD Rank: 18874
2010 IMD Rank: 22503
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5559 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7419
2007 IMD Rank: 8162
2010 IMD Rank: 12978
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1425 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14985
2007 IMD Rank: 13367
2010 IMD Rank: 16410
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2247 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3191
2007 IMD Rank: 4452
2010 IMD Rank: 5438
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -829 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4001
2007 IMD Rank: 3291
2010 IMD Rank: 3172
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 60 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8402
2007 IMD Rank: 7892
2010 IMD Rank: 8462
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2050 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2988
2007 IMD Rank: 2913
2010 IMD Rank: 5038
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 310 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8111
2007 IMD Rank: 7492
2010 IMD Rank: 8421
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3539 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8939
2007 IMD Rank: 5428
2010 IMD Rank: 5400
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -738 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5364
2007 IMD Rank: 4324
2010 IMD Rank: 4626
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1053 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6288
2007 IMD Rank: 5603
2010 IMD Rank: 5235
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2081 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7007
2007 IMD Rank: 5481
2010 IMD Rank: 4926
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -257 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7752
2007 IMD Rank: 7400
2010 IMD Rank: 7495
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -799 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6898
2007 IMD Rank: 6628
2010 IMD Rank: 6099
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1082 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8155
2007 IMD Rank: 7112
2010 IMD Rank: 7073
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1128 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8121
2007 IMD Rank: 7386
2010 IMD Rank: 6993
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -43 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6529
2007 IMD Rank: 5769
2010 IMD Rank: 6486
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 275 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6267
2007 IMD Rank: 6673
2010 IMD Rank: 6542
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 671 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8168
2007 IMD Rank: 8106
2010 IMD Rank: 8839
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -12 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11352
2007 IMD Rank: 9103
2010 IMD Rank: 11340
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8511
2007 IMD Rank: 8414
2010 IMD Rank: 8512
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -397 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7431
2007 IMD Rank: 7514
2010 IMD Rank: 7034
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2002 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7671
2007 IMD Rank: 4202
2010 IMD Rank: 5669
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -485 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2840
2007 IMD Rank: 2990
2010 IMD Rank: 2355
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -549 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4244
2007 IMD Rank: 3656
2010 IMD Rank: 3695
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6848 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16558
2007 IMD Rank: 13953
2010 IMD Rank: 9710
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1689 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3462
2007 IMD Rank: 2068
2010 IMD Rank: 1773
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5194 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14948
2007 IMD Rank: 10902
2010 IMD Rank: 9754
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1256 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9619
2007 IMD Rank: 8960
2010 IMD Rank: 8363
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1798 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6072
2007 IMD Rank: 4393
2010 IMD Rank: 4274
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -964 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8560
2007 IMD Rank: 6714
2010 IMD Rank: 7596
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4463 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13508
2007 IMD Rank: 11084
2010 IMD Rank: 9045
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1562 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14407
2007 IMD Rank: 13381
2010 IMD Rank: 12845
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2395 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14744
2007 IMD Rank: 11820
2010 IMD Rank: 12349
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -324 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15190
2007 IMD Rank: 13110
2010 IMD Rank: 14866
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 406 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14859
2007 IMD Rank: 14673
2010 IMD Rank: 15265
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -141 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5050
2007 IMD Rank: 4983
2010 IMD Rank: 4909
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2372 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9357
2007 IMD Rank: 7207
2010 IMD Rank: 6985
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -888 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5603
2007 IMD Rank: 4698
2010 IMD Rank: 4715
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3003 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9961
2007 IMD Rank: 9169
2010 IMD Rank: 6958
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2593 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9952
2007 IMD Rank: 8084
2010 IMD Rank: 7359
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2211 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6740
2007 IMD Rank: 5380
2010 IMD Rank: 4529
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1845 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10535
2007 IMD Rank: 7879
2010 IMD Rank: 8690
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1095 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2974
2007 IMD Rank: 2446
2010 IMD Rank: 4069
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 96 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1242
2007 IMD Rank: 682
2010 IMD Rank: 1338
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1124 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2204
2007 IMD Rank: 2247
2010 IMD Rank: 3328
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2630 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8969
2007 IMD Rank: 7775
2010 IMD Rank: 6339
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -685 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2242
2007 IMD Rank: 1632
2010 IMD Rank: 1557
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1745 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10279
2007 IMD Rank: 9055
2010 IMD Rank: 8534
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -369 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7392
2007 IMD Rank: 6612
2010 IMD Rank: 7023
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 168 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8127
2007 IMD Rank: 6574
2010 IMD Rank: 8295
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 741 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7576
2007 IMD Rank: 7250
2010 IMD Rank: 8317
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1057 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6342
2007 IMD Rank: 5189
2010 IMD Rank: 5285
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2324 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7234
2007 IMD Rank: 5599
2010 IMD Rank: 4910
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3359 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8752
2007 IMD Rank: 5978
2010 IMD Rank: 5393
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1283 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7659
2007 IMD Rank: 6382
2010 IMD Rank: 6376
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2362 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6331
2007 IMD Rank: 4610
2010 IMD Rank: 3969
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 311 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1648
2007 IMD Rank: 1082
2010 IMD Rank: 1959
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4514 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11320
2007 IMD Rank: 7594
2010 IMD Rank: 6806
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2126 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8704
2007 IMD Rank: 7139
2010 IMD Rank: 6578
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -862 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7013
2007 IMD Rank: 6018
2010 IMD Rank: 6151
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1160 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6814
2007 IMD Rank: 5453
2010 IMD Rank: 5654
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3391 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13828
2007 IMD Rank: 10036
2010 IMD Rank: 10437
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4635 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16492
2007 IMD Rank: 13231
2010 IMD Rank: 11857
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -403 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12086
2007 IMD Rank: 11547
2010 IMD Rank: 11683
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3519 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20965
2007 IMD Rank: 18796
2010 IMD Rank: 17446
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2251 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15934
2007 IMD Rank: 12665
2010 IMD Rank: 13683
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1288 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17841
2007 IMD Rank: 16406
2010 IMD Rank: 16553
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2231 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6091
2007 IMD Rank: 4886
2010 IMD Rank: 3860
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1872 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7598
2007 IMD Rank: 6630
2010 IMD Rank: 5726
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -283 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7513
2007 IMD Rank: 7297
2010 IMD Rank: 7230
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2615 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8860
2007 IMD Rank: 6644
2010 IMD Rank: 6245
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2538 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6414
2007 IMD Rank: 4598
2010 IMD Rank: 3876
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1088 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7412
2007 IMD Rank: 6565
2010 IMD Rank: 6324
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1349 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6651
2007 IMD Rank: 5241
2010 IMD Rank: 5302
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1206 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7354
2007 IMD Rank: 6922
2010 IMD Rank: 6148
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -351 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6828
2007 IMD Rank: 6329
2010 IMD Rank: 6477
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -285 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7456
2007 IMD Rank: 6873
2010 IMD Rank: 7171
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -709 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6711
2007 IMD Rank: 5656
2010 IMD Rank: 6002
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1850 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7166
2007 IMD Rank: 6428
2010 IMD Rank: 5316
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -169 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6148
2007 IMD Rank: 6378
2010 IMD Rank: 5979
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -807 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5630
2007 IMD Rank: 4835
2010 IMD Rank: 4823
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 254 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6903
2007 IMD Rank: 6664
2010 IMD Rank: 7157
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 223 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5794
2007 IMD Rank: 5563
2010 IMD Rank: 6017
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1727 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10948
2007 IMD Rank: 10998
2010 IMD Rank: 9221
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3097 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11407
2007 IMD Rank: 8266
2010 IMD Rank: 8310
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -129 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9884
2007 IMD Rank: 9660
2010 IMD Rank: 9755
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1582 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4383
2007 IMD Rank: 2582
2010 IMD Rank: 2801
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 483 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8827
2007 IMD Rank: 7019
2010 IMD Rank: 9310
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -716 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3136
2007 IMD Rank: 2361
2010 IMD Rank: 2420
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2656 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4766
2007 IMD Rank: 4955
2010 IMD Rank: 7422
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 449 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6517
2007 IMD Rank: 5636
2010 IMD Rank: 6966
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -864 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2838
2007 IMD Rank: 1815
2010 IMD Rank: 1974
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1347 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6924
2007 IMD Rank: 5031
2010 IMD Rank: 5577
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1133 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7463
2007 IMD Rank: 5629
2010 IMD Rank: 6330
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1877 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7395
2007 IMD Rank: 5581
2010 IMD Rank: 5518
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1888 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7778
2007 IMD Rank: 6436
2010 IMD Rank: 5890
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1268 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6452
2007 IMD Rank: 5507
2010 IMD Rank: 5184
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1172 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10336
2007 IMD Rank: 9677
2010 IMD Rank: 11508
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -968 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4942
2007 IMD Rank: 3284
2010 IMD Rank: 3974
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -989 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6140
2007 IMD Rank: 5366
2010 IMD Rank: 5151
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5024 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14572
2007 IMD Rank: 15298
2010 IMD Rank: 19596
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 933 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9261
2007 IMD Rank: 9282
2010 IMD Rank: 10194
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1480 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17596
2007 IMD Rank: 17053
2010 IMD Rank: 19076
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1983 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22213
2007 IMD Rank: 21551
2010 IMD Rank: 24196
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -688 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14943
2007 IMD Rank: 13454
2010 IMD Rank: 14255
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -579 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15990
2007 IMD Rank: 15536
2010 IMD Rank: 15411
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1112 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18596
2007 IMD Rank: 17746
2010 IMD Rank: 19708
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1373 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6856
2007 IMD Rank: 5762
2010 IMD Rank: 5483
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1200 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10620
2007 IMD Rank: 8928
2010 IMD Rank: 9420
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1890 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15757
2007 IMD Rank: 20936
2010 IMD Rank: 17647
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -967 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11106
2007 IMD Rank: 11105
2010 IMD Rank: 10139
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3484 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16412
2007 IMD Rank: 19335
2010 IMD Rank: 19896
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4342 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17392
2007 IMD Rank: 18720
2010 IMD Rank: 21734
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2749 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19387
2007 IMD Rank: 21202
2010 IMD Rank: 22136
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -612 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20289
2007 IMD Rank: 20776
2010 IMD Rank: 19677
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4377 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8925
2007 IMD Rank: 6473
2010 IMD Rank: 4548
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1019 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16871
2007 IMD Rank: 16212
2010 IMD Rank: 17890
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1999 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10515
2007 IMD Rank: 7941
2010 IMD Rank: 8516
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1497 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9991
2007 IMD Rank: 8639
2010 IMD Rank: 8494
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3118 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9312
2007 IMD Rank: 8698
2010 IMD Rank: 6194
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1477 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10223
2007 IMD Rank: 9766
2010 IMD Rank: 11700
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1177 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10367
2007 IMD Rank: 8083
2010 IMD Rank: 9190
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1990 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10975
2007 IMD Rank: 9814
2010 IMD Rank: 8985
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -409 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10095
2007 IMD Rank: 9115
2010 IMD Rank: 9686
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2814 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12717
2007 IMD Rank: 16885
2010 IMD Rank: 15531
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -164 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6656
2007 IMD Rank: 9504
2010 IMD Rank: 6492
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1112 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11009
2007 IMD Rank: 10226
2010 IMD Rank: 9897
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1554 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5919
2007 IMD Rank: 7667
2010 IMD Rank: 7473
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -782 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4378
2007 IMD Rank: 3211
2010 IMD Rank: 3596
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1666 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5360
2007 IMD Rank: 5855
2010 IMD Rank: 7026
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1258 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4192
2007 IMD Rank: 5896
2010 IMD Rank: 5450
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1640 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2294
2007 IMD Rank: 2553
2010 IMD Rank: 3934
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1299 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6549
2007 IMD Rank: 8367
2010 IMD Rank: 7848
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1939 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9375
2007 IMD Rank: 11781
2010 IMD Rank: 11314
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -546 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4588
2007 IMD Rank: 4687
2010 IMD Rank: 4042
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2462 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17645
2007 IMD Rank: 19579
2010 IMD Rank: 20107
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1463 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17574
2007 IMD Rank: 17603
2010 IMD Rank: 19037
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4137 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17065
2007 IMD Rank: 18238
2010 IMD Rank: 21202
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1099 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10663
2007 IMD Rank: 10771
2010 IMD Rank: 11762
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 594 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11947
2007 IMD Rank: 12251
2010 IMD Rank: 12541
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -971 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7986
2007 IMD Rank: 9002
2010 IMD Rank: 7015
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1932 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6746
2007 IMD Rank: 8421
2010 IMD Rank: 8678
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1048 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2415
2007 IMD Rank: 1906
2010 IMD Rank: 3463
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1605 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8957
2007 IMD Rank: 9364
2010 IMD Rank: 10562
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 173 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3542
2007 IMD Rank: 3568
2010 IMD Rank: 3715
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -331 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2696
2007 IMD Rank: 2033
2010 IMD Rank: 2365
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -522 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6386
2007 IMD Rank: 6455
2010 IMD Rank: 5864
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1858 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10634
2007 IMD Rank: 12988
2010 IMD Rank: 12492
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -216 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3504
2007 IMD Rank: 2835
2010 IMD Rank: 3288
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1158 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11164
2007 IMD Rank: 10908
2010 IMD Rank: 12322
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1096 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18860
2007 IMD Rank: 21037
2010 IMD Rank: 17764
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1976 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12830
2007 IMD Rank: 11066
2010 IMD Rank: 10854
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1906 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16339
2007 IMD Rank: 15824
2010 IMD Rank: 14433
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 296 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16368
2007 IMD Rank: 19715
2010 IMD Rank: 16664
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2893 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18595
2007 IMD Rank: 20655
2010 IMD Rank: 21488
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2287 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12238
2007 IMD Rank: 14142
2010 IMD Rank: 14525
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 746 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5896
2007 IMD Rank: 7470
2010 IMD Rank: 6642
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1461 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2953
2007 IMD Rank: 3071
2010 IMD Rank: 4414
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 538 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2422
2007 IMD Rank: 2954
2010 IMD Rank: 2960
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2937 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4144
2007 IMD Rank: 4299
2010 IMD Rank: 7081
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1055 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11531
2007 IMD Rank: 12480
2010 IMD Rank: 12586
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1150 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8354
2007 IMD Rank: 8469
2010 IMD Rank: 9504
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1156 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6954
2007 IMD Rank: 7543
2010 IMD Rank: 8110
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 431 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2440
2007 IMD Rank: 3962
2010 IMD Rank: 2871
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -407 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2570
2007 IMD Rank: 2629
2010 IMD Rank: 2163
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 410 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1109
2007 IMD Rank: 941
2010 IMD Rank: 1519
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1055 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 944
2007 IMD Rank: 1060
2010 IMD Rank: 1999
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1534 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4211
2007 IMD Rank: 4638
2010 IMD Rank: 2677
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 891 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4108
2007 IMD Rank: 6296
2010 IMD Rank: 4999
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1196 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4415
2007 IMD Rank: 6532
2010 IMD Rank: 5611
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2826 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4339
2007 IMD Rank: 5664
2010 IMD Rank: 7165
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2286 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9361
2007 IMD Rank: 11626
2010 IMD Rank: 11647
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1792 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13476
2007 IMD Rank: 18277
2010 IMD Rank: 15268
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4911 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11227
2007 IMD Rank: 15201
2010 IMD Rank: 16138
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3055 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16610
2007 IMD Rank: 21343
2010 IMD Rank: 19665
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 741 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9204
2007 IMD Rank: 11155
2010 IMD Rank: 9945
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4227 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10032
2007 IMD Rank: 14157
2010 IMD Rank: 14259
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4451 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6704
2007 IMD Rank: 9992
2010 IMD Rank: 11155
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3206 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7988
2007 IMD Rank: 10736
2010 IMD Rank: 11194
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 853 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22110
2007 IMD Rank: 23801
2010 IMD Rank: 22963
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 419 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22106
2007 IMD Rank: 22639
2010 IMD Rank: 22525
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2853 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16863
2007 IMD Rank: 20157
2010 IMD Rank: 19716
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 356 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8904
2007 IMD Rank: 7573
2010 IMD Rank: 9260
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 857 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13946
2007 IMD Rank: 16725
2010 IMD Rank: 14803
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3311 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12060
2007 IMD Rank: 13862
2010 IMD Rank: 15371
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -983 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7950
2007 IMD Rank: 10814
2010 IMD Rank: 6967
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 201 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4562
2007 IMD Rank: 6430
2010 IMD Rank: 4763
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1080 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7171
2007 IMD Rank: 7896
2010 IMD Rank: 8251
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1154 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7506
2007 IMD Rank: 6073
2010 IMD Rank: 6352
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -416 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4981
2007 IMD Rank: 5055
2010 IMD Rank: 4565
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -507 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2998
2007 IMD Rank: 2264
2010 IMD Rank: 2491
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1485 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5109
2007 IMD Rank: 3665
2010 IMD Rank: 3624
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1082 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4011
2007 IMD Rank: 2655
2010 IMD Rank: 2929
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1108 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11454
2007 IMD Rank: 10531
2010 IMD Rank: 10346
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3172 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12862
2007 IMD Rank: 10810
2010 IMD Rank: 9690
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3695 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12138
2007 IMD Rank: 10316
2010 IMD Rank: 8443
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5191 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19885
2007 IMD Rank: 17082
2010 IMD Rank: 14694
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2116 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10086
2007 IMD Rank: 9667
2010 IMD Rank: 7970
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3190 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13142
2007 IMD Rank: 10096
2010 IMD Rank: 9952
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 705 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13173
2007 IMD Rank: 12764
2010 IMD Rank: 13878
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2708 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12454
2007 IMD Rank: 10978
2010 IMD Rank: 9746
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1259 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29156
2007 IMD Rank: 25396
2010 IMD Rank: 30415
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 926 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24320
2007 IMD Rank: 19989
2010 IMD Rank: 25246
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1688 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25038
2007 IMD Rank: 20490
2010 IMD Rank: 23350
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3207 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23652
2007 IMD Rank: 17462
2010 IMD Rank: 20445
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5907 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18613
2007 IMD Rank: 16296
2010 IMD Rank: 24520
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3141 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24297
2007 IMD Rank: 21439
2010 IMD Rank: 27438
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1298 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6074
2007 IMD Rank: 4380
2010 IMD Rank: 7372
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1615 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23793
2007 IMD Rank: 18419
2010 IMD Rank: 25408
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1559 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21480
2007 IMD Rank: 15685
2010 IMD Rank: 19921
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -143 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10624
2007 IMD Rank: 8157
2010 IMD Rank: 10481
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -49 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5776
2007 IMD Rank: 4086
2010 IMD Rank: 5727
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1971 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5064
2007 IMD Rank: 3515
2010 IMD Rank: 7035
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2055 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9404
2007 IMD Rank: 7488
2010 IMD Rank: 11459
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 262 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11819
2007 IMD Rank: 8729
2010 IMD Rank: 12081
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1081 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5383
2007 IMD Rank: 4578
2010 IMD Rank: 6464
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 251 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9133
2007 IMD Rank: 7053
2010 IMD Rank: 9384
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2508 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18295
2007 IMD Rank: 10911
2010 IMD Rank: 15787
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 637 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9459
2007 IMD Rank: 7500
2010 IMD Rank: 10096
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 610 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8156
2007 IMD Rank: 5990
2010 IMD Rank: 8766
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 799 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11314
2007 IMD Rank: 7619
2010 IMD Rank: 12113
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -252 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24760
2007 IMD Rank: 20747
2010 IMD Rank: 24508
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3447 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27163
2007 IMD Rank: 22091
2010 IMD Rank: 23716
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -618 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8464
2007 IMD Rank: 6482
2010 IMD Rank: 7846
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4716 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18954
2007 IMD Rank: 14392
2010 IMD Rank: 14238
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3199 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21965
2007 IMD Rank: 16907
2010 IMD Rank: 18766
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1795 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17529
2007 IMD Rank: 13411
2010 IMD Rank: 15734
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1264 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7665
2007 IMD Rank: 5534
2010 IMD Rank: 8929
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2287 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16014
2007 IMD Rank: 11492
2010 IMD Rank: 13727
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 125 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8531
2007 IMD Rank: 5742
2010 IMD Rank: 8656
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -212 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19747
2007 IMD Rank: 17876
2010 IMD Rank: 19535
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 196 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24964
2007 IMD Rank: 21986
2010 IMD Rank: 25160
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 482 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18320
2007 IMD Rank: 15820
2010 IMD Rank: 18802
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2444 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20891
2007 IMD Rank: 16776
2010 IMD Rank: 18447
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 493 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9542
2007 IMD Rank: 7294
2010 IMD Rank: 10035
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 467 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18469
2007 IMD Rank: 13982
2010 IMD Rank: 18936
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -617 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15001
2007 IMD Rank: 10676
2010 IMD Rank: 14384
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2126 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3317
2007 IMD Rank: 2788
2010 IMD Rank: 5443
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 425 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5827
2007 IMD Rank: 4044
2010 IMD Rank: 6252
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1301 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3728
2007 IMD Rank: 2480
2010 IMD Rank: 5029
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 175 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3445
2007 IMD Rank: 2517
2010 IMD Rank: 3620
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2462 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14527
2007 IMD Rank: 9906
2010 IMD Rank: 12065
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2697 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15299
2007 IMD Rank: 13038
2010 IMD Rank: 17996
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -29 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16999
2007 IMD Rank: 13951
2010 IMD Rank: 16970
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2865 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12566
2007 IMD Rank: 10952
2010 IMD Rank: 15431
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -329 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17386
2007 IMD Rank: 11711
2010 IMD Rank: 17057
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2230 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19923
2007 IMD Rank: 16373
2010 IMD Rank: 22153
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2641 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16599
2007 IMD Rank: 14421
2010 IMD Rank: 19240
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 934 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13802
2007 IMD Rank: 12335
2010 IMD Rank: 14736
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -117 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8484
2007 IMD Rank: 5517
2010 IMD Rank: 8367
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 893 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8009
2007 IMD Rank: 6495
2010 IMD Rank: 8902
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1001 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23328
2007 IMD Rank: 17307
2010 IMD Rank: 22327
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2083 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21471
2007 IMD Rank: 16253
2010 IMD Rank: 19388
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1122 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11578
2007 IMD Rank: 9706
2010 IMD Rank: 12700
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 173 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29265
2007 IMD Rank: 25399
2010 IMD Rank: 29438
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -644 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24403
2007 IMD Rank: 17974
2010 IMD Rank: 23759
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2016 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17610
2007 IMD Rank: 12505
2010 IMD Rank: 15594
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4864 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20784
2007 IMD Rank: 12133
2010 IMD Rank: 15920
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1731 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27483
2007 IMD Rank: 19391
2010 IMD Rank: 25752
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1152 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24861
2007 IMD Rank: 18649
2010 IMD Rank: 26013
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1285 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16354
2007 IMD Rank: 13924
2010 IMD Rank: 17639
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 763 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25342
2007 IMD Rank: 20986
2010 IMD Rank: 26105
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -34 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9745
2007 IMD Rank: 7517
2010 IMD Rank: 9711
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2059 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20681
2007 IMD Rank: 17815
2010 IMD Rank: 22740
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2259 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20843
2007 IMD Rank: 15084
2010 IMD Rank: 18584
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 378 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20461
2007 IMD Rank: 15953
2010 IMD Rank: 20839
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2535 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18856
2007 IMD Rank: 13536
2010 IMD Rank: 16321
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -640 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20038
2007 IMD Rank: 16531
2010 IMD Rank: 19398
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2840 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25821
2007 IMD Rank: 20305
2010 IMD Rank: 22981
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1039 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22099
2007 IMD Rank: 17522
2010 IMD Rank: 21060
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4280 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7799
2007 IMD Rank: 5469
2010 IMD Rank: 3519
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 642 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5233
2007 IMD Rank: 2820
2010 IMD Rank: 5875
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1366 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29423
2007 IMD Rank: 25274
2010 IMD Rank: 28057
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2732 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22116
2007 IMD Rank: 15392
2010 IMD Rank: 19384
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2904 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24952
2007 IMD Rank: 20517
2010 IMD Rank: 27856
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -201 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4136
2007 IMD Rank: 2988
2010 IMD Rank: 3935
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 683 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22085
2007 IMD Rank: 15082
2010 IMD Rank: 22768
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -672 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25790
2007 IMD Rank: 18607
2010 IMD Rank: 25118
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1820 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16116
2007 IMD Rank: 13492
2010 IMD Rank: 17936
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4037 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23056
2007 IMD Rank: 16289
2010 IMD Rank: 19019
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3491 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10076
2007 IMD Rank: 7865
2010 IMD Rank: 13567
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2920 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11415
2007 IMD Rank: 6754
2010 IMD Rank: 8495
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -166 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21852
2007 IMD Rank: 17578
2010 IMD Rank: 21686
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1445 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19426
2007 IMD Rank: 14671
2010 IMD Rank: 20871
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 419 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22256
2007 IMD Rank: 17683
2010 IMD Rank: 22675
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2303 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28154
2007 IMD Rank: 23828
2010 IMD Rank: 25851
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1190 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21941
2007 IMD Rank: 17298
2010 IMD Rank: 20751
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3111 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30010
2007 IMD Rank: 23943
2010 IMD Rank: 26899
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1990 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23136
2007 IMD Rank: 16974
2010 IMD Rank: 25126
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1473 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13486
2007 IMD Rank: 9988
2010 IMD Rank: 12013
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3379 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26664
2007 IMD Rank: 19773
2010 IMD Rank: 23285
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2070 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25775
2007 IMD Rank: 23667
2010 IMD Rank: 27845
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3032 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21628
2007 IMD Rank: 20340
2010 IMD Rank: 24660
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2109 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26163
2007 IMD Rank: 21832
2010 IMD Rank: 28272
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -27 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26754
2007 IMD Rank: 22947
2010 IMD Rank: 26727
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1395 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27323
2007 IMD Rank: 22757
2010 IMD Rank: 25928
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 380 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25739
2007 IMD Rank: 22131
2010 IMD Rank: 26119
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -324 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17694
2007 IMD Rank: 13157
2010 IMD Rank: 17370
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1165 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24827
2007 IMD Rank: 19921
2010 IMD Rank: 25992
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1010 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23773
2007 IMD Rank: 19120
2010 IMD Rank: 24783
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3342 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26318
2007 IMD Rank: 21599
2010 IMD Rank: 22976
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1166 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20326
2007 IMD Rank: 16866
2010 IMD Rank: 21492
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3701 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25951
2007 IMD Rank: 19747
2010 IMD Rank: 22250
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3573 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27104
2007 IMD Rank: 21541
2010 IMD Rank: 23531
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4617 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26426
2007 IMD Rank: 19629
2010 IMD Rank: 21809
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 271 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19366
2007 IMD Rank: 16448
2010 IMD Rank: 19637
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -282 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16815
2007 IMD Rank: 12724
2010 IMD Rank: 16533
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 717 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4909
2007 IMD Rank: 3587
2010 IMD Rank: 5626
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3862 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14611
2007 IMD Rank: 9935
2010 IMD Rank: 10749
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1059 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8116
2007 IMD Rank: 6199
2010 IMD Rank: 7057
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2551 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18790
2007 IMD Rank: 14165
2010 IMD Rank: 16239
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2624 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25170
2007 IMD Rank: 20664
2010 IMD Rank: 22546
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1688 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7404
2007 IMD Rank: 4950
2010 IMD Rank: 9092
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 618 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22469
2007 IMD Rank: 18044
2010 IMD Rank: 23087
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 601 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19982
2007 IMD Rank: 14459
2010 IMD Rank: 20583
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1207 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12783
2007 IMD Rank: 8418
2010 IMD Rank: 11576
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 595 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25386
2007 IMD Rank: 18859
2010 IMD Rank: 25981
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2894 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20581
2007 IMD Rank: 13586
2010 IMD Rank: 17687
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 649 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18798
2007 IMD Rank: 14761
2010 IMD Rank: 19447
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 105 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21239
2007 IMD Rank: 18266
2010 IMD Rank: 21344
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -445 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25479
2007 IMD Rank: 19493
2010 IMD Rank: 25034
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 289 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11279
2007 IMD Rank: 7960
2010 IMD Rank: 11568
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4228 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20962
2007 IMD Rank: 15622
2010 IMD Rank: 16734
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 18 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18739
2007 IMD Rank: 15016
2010 IMD Rank: 18757
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4376 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21372
2007 IMD Rank: 16949
2010 IMD Rank: 16996
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2630 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17624
2007 IMD Rank: 12730
2010 IMD Rank: 14994
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4922 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20701
2007 IMD Rank: 13700
2010 IMD Rank: 15779
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1906 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23512
2007 IMD Rank: 18623
2010 IMD Rank: 21606
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2667 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19625
2007 IMD Rank: 14345
2010 IMD Rank: 16958
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 129 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15787
2007 IMD Rank: 11316
2010 IMD Rank: 15916
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -379 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19105
2007 IMD Rank: 13134
2010 IMD Rank: 18726
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 178 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7232
2007 IMD Rank: 6619
2010 IMD Rank: 7410
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 205 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23897
2007 IMD Rank: 19975
2010 IMD Rank: 24102
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1889 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24761
2007 IMD Rank: 17016
2010 IMD Rank: 22872
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2642 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21159
2007 IMD Rank: 19081
2010 IMD Rank: 23801
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -62 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29768
2007 IMD Rank: 25105
2010 IMD Rank: 29706
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5880 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14662
2007 IMD Rank: 12862
2010 IMD Rank: 20542
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3830 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15789
2007 IMD Rank: 10080
2010 IMD Rank: 11959
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1061 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18432
2007 IMD Rank: 14909
2010 IMD Rank: 17371
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 103 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23765
2007 IMD Rank: 18135
2010 IMD Rank: 23868
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 481 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27197
2007 IMD Rank: 21622
2010 IMD Rank: 27678
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2295 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17852
2007 IMD Rank: 12046
2010 IMD Rank: 15557
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1809 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23194
2007 IMD Rank: 19676
2010 IMD Rank: 21385
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1329 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9272
2007 IMD Rank: 6365
2010 IMD Rank: 7943
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1548 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20745
2007 IMD Rank: 17769
2010 IMD Rank: 22293
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4407 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25617
2007 IMD Rank: 17469
2010 IMD Rank: 21210
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -475 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15171
2007 IMD Rank: 11990
2010 IMD Rank: 14696
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3290 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22739
2007 IMD Rank: 19317
2010 IMD Rank: 26029
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -10152 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28248
2007 IMD Rank: 17632
2010 IMD Rank: 18096
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -150 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29799
2007 IMD Rank: 22642
2010 IMD Rank: 29649
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2489 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16132
2007 IMD Rank: 13910
2010 IMD Rank: 18621
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4433 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18452
2007 IMD Rank: 11067
2010 IMD Rank: 14019
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 521 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25426
2007 IMD Rank: 19328
2010 IMD Rank: 25947
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4184 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26869
2007 IMD Rank: 18005
2010 IMD Rank: 22685
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3800 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17089
2007 IMD Rank: 11925
2010 IMD Rank: 13289
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2384 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22270
2007 IMD Rank: 20594
2010 IMD Rank: 24654
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 342 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24000
2007 IMD Rank: 17083
2010 IMD Rank: 24342
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2213 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24569
2007 IMD Rank: 19060
2010 IMD Rank: 26782
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1646 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30973
2007 IMD Rank: 27083
2010 IMD Rank: 29327
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2856 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15691
2007 IMD Rank: 14007
2010 IMD Rank: 18547
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1487 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16250
2007 IMD Rank: 10889
2010 IMD Rank: 14763
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3000 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25074
2007 IMD Rank: 17611
2010 IMD Rank: 22074
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 214 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29512
2007 IMD Rank: 25985
2010 IMD Rank: 29726
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1057 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16630
2007 IMD Rank: 12350
2010 IMD Rank: 15573
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 616 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28940
2007 IMD Rank: 25281
2010 IMD Rank: 29556
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1293 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25604
2007 IMD Rank: 23271
2010 IMD Rank: 26897
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -17 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30785
2007 IMD Rank: 25931
2010 IMD Rank: 30768
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5344 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25456
2007 IMD Rank: 18811
2010 IMD Rank: 20112
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1213 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22627
2007 IMD Rank: 16926
2010 IMD Rank: 23840
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -104 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30469
2007 IMD Rank: 24703
2010 IMD Rank: 30365
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 100 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14919
2007 IMD Rank: 10980
2010 IMD Rank: 15019
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -968 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20695
2007 IMD Rank: 17212
2010 IMD Rank: 19727
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2248 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14817
2007 IMD Rank: 10357
2010 IMD Rank: 12569
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -692 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12907
2007 IMD Rank: 10147
2010 IMD Rank: 12215
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -131 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20785
2007 IMD Rank: 14793
2010 IMD Rank: 20654
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -571 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6603
2007 IMD Rank: 3521
2010 IMD Rank: 6032
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15109
2007 IMD Rank: 10659
2010 IMD Rank: 15112
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 673 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7837
2007 IMD Rank: 6379
2010 IMD Rank: 8510
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1404 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22316
2007 IMD Rank: 17375
2010 IMD Rank: 23720
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1051 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26804
2007 IMD Rank: 21335
2010 IMD Rank: 27855
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4401 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25159
2007 IMD Rank: 18937
2010 IMD Rank: 20758
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4814 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23462
2007 IMD Rank: 18693
2010 IMD Rank: 18648
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2668 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19992
2007 IMD Rank: 12824
2010 IMD Rank: 17324
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1199 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18729
2007 IMD Rank: 12719
2010 IMD Rank: 17530
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1549 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18174
2007 IMD Rank: 13853
2010 IMD Rank: 19723
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1263 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15295
2007 IMD Rank: 10278
2010 IMD Rank: 16558
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2465 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20294
2007 IMD Rank: 15588
2010 IMD Rank: 22759
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2480 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24803
2007 IMD Rank: 20602
2010 IMD Rank: 27283
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -949 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15300
2007 IMD Rank: 10208
2010 IMD Rank: 14351
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 441 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26352
2007 IMD Rank: 22292
2010 IMD Rank: 26793
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5702 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13106
2007 IMD Rank: 17652
2010 IMD Rank: 18808
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5031 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7884
2007 IMD Rank: 12294
2010 IMD Rank: 12915
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6144 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5846
2007 IMD Rank: 8288
2010 IMD Rank: 11990
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 11330 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14865
2007 IMD Rank: 19608
2010 IMD Rank: 26195
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 7333 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6112
2007 IMD Rank: 11658
2010 IMD Rank: 13445
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 570 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7044
2007 IMD Rank: 7083
2010 IMD Rank: 7614
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3325 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7012
2007 IMD Rank: 9254
2010 IMD Rank: 10337
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1752 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2631
2007 IMD Rank: 4057
2010 IMD Rank: 4383
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3641 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3220
2007 IMD Rank: 4938
2010 IMD Rank: 6861
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4829 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5550
2007 IMD Rank: 7733
2010 IMD Rank: 10379
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3565 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7694
2007 IMD Rank: 10625
2010 IMD Rank: 11259
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5391 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3762
2007 IMD Rank: 7519
2010 IMD Rank: 9153
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4434 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4364
2007 IMD Rank: 6806
2010 IMD Rank: 8798
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4763 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4908
2007 IMD Rank: 7726
2010 IMD Rank: 9671
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5012 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7953
2007 IMD Rank: 12833
2010 IMD Rank: 12965
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2873 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2306
2007 IMD Rank: 4633
2010 IMD Rank: 5179
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4048 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3656
2007 IMD Rank: 7567
2010 IMD Rank: 7704
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4782 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6536
2007 IMD Rank: 10624
2010 IMD Rank: 11318
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4158 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5575
2007 IMD Rank: 7296
2010 IMD Rank: 9733
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4358 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3367
2007 IMD Rank: 4437
2010 IMD Rank: 7725
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3490 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2182
2007 IMD Rank: 3322
2010 IMD Rank: 5672
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2343 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2274
2007 IMD Rank: 4152
2010 IMD Rank: 4617
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3640 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5900
2007 IMD Rank: 9417
2010 IMD Rank: 9540
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1316 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6335
2007 IMD Rank: 7193
2010 IMD Rank: 5019
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2077 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3645
2007 IMD Rank: 4448
2010 IMD Rank: 5722
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2096 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3582
2007 IMD Rank: 4272
2010 IMD Rank: 5678
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3784 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5557
2007 IMD Rank: 8560
2010 IMD Rank: 9341
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5797 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7787
2007 IMD Rank: 10201
2010 IMD Rank: 13584
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 8553 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2061
2007 IMD Rank: 3464
2010 IMD Rank: 10614
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3574 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1710
2007 IMD Rank: 2691
2010 IMD Rank: 5284
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6682 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7075
2007 IMD Rank: 11511
2010 IMD Rank: 13757
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5240 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1543
2007 IMD Rank: 3274
2010 IMD Rank: 6783
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6824 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8917
2007 IMD Rank: 12637
2010 IMD Rank: 15741
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 7158 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8017
2007 IMD Rank: 8726
2010 IMD Rank: 15175
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2103 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3636
2007 IMD Rank: 3543
2010 IMD Rank: 5739
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 8091 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2295
2007 IMD Rank: 5944
2010 IMD Rank: 10386
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6574 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10843
2007 IMD Rank: 17954
2010 IMD Rank: 17417
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4297 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2630
2007 IMD Rank: 4894
2010 IMD Rank: 6927
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2019 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3477
2007 IMD Rank: 5479
2010 IMD Rank: 5496
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4012 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7724
2007 IMD Rank: 9801
2010 IMD Rank: 11736
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1379 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1755
2007 IMD Rank: 2540
2010 IMD Rank: 3134
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1722 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4226
2007 IMD Rank: 4909
2010 IMD Rank: 5948
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1959 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1826
2007 IMD Rank: 4355
2010 IMD Rank: 3785
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1777 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1734
2007 IMD Rank: 3088
2010 IMD Rank: 3511
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3050 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3760
2007 IMD Rank: 4970
2010 IMD Rank: 6810
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2482 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3696
2007 IMD Rank: 5118
2010 IMD Rank: 6178
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1712 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1903
2007 IMD Rank: 3704
2010 IMD Rank: 3615
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4660 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6121
2007 IMD Rank: 9248
2010 IMD Rank: 10781
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4134 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 791
2007 IMD Rank: 3782
2010 IMD Rank: 4925
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3856 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1322
2007 IMD Rank: 4340
2010 IMD Rank: 5178
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2969 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7802
2007 IMD Rank: 10415
2010 IMD Rank: 10771
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3676 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3865
2007 IMD Rank: 5253
2010 IMD Rank: 7541
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 7477 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12504
2007 IMD Rank: 18171
2010 IMD Rank: 19981
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6548 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14517
2007 IMD Rank: 19854
2010 IMD Rank: 21065
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4002 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8262
2007 IMD Rank: 12279
2010 IMD Rank: 12264
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4677 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6873
2007 IMD Rank: 11883
2010 IMD Rank: 11550
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6424 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16304
2007 IMD Rank: 21999
2010 IMD Rank: 22728
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6167 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13930
2007 IMD Rank: 18803
2010 IMD Rank: 20097
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6287 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11618
2007 IMD Rank: 16120
2010 IMD Rank: 17905
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 10941 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12156
2007 IMD Rank: 18858
2010 IMD Rank: 23097
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 7272 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9755
2007 IMD Rank: 16627
2010 IMD Rank: 17027
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 6529 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12657
2007 IMD Rank: 18634
2010 IMD Rank: 19186
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2580 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3609
2007 IMD Rank: 4958
2010 IMD Rank: 6189
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2925 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4894
2007 IMD Rank: 8465
2010 IMD Rank: 7819
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3912 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3069
2007 IMD Rank: 5548
2010 IMD Rank: 6981
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1626 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14810
2007 IMD Rank: 14748
2010 IMD Rank: 13184
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -594 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12473
2007 IMD Rank: 12378
2010 IMD Rank: 11879
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -787 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7796
2007 IMD Rank: 5966
2010 IMD Rank: 7009
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3319 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17101
2007 IMD Rank: 15243
2010 IMD Rank: 13782
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3028 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21571
2007 IMD Rank: 19162
2010 IMD Rank: 18543
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 226 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15937
2007 IMD Rank: 15646
2010 IMD Rank: 16163
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1574 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18192
2007 IMD Rank: 16489
2010 IMD Rank: 16618
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4291 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17760
2007 IMD Rank: 14543
2010 IMD Rank: 13469
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -432 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22127
2007 IMD Rank: 21676
2010 IMD Rank: 21695
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -685 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9036
2007 IMD Rank: 9580
2010 IMD Rank: 8351
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3710 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23460
2007 IMD Rank: 21036
2010 IMD Rank: 19750
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6293 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25759
2007 IMD Rank: 21139
2010 IMD Rank: 19466
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2595 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25306
2007 IMD Rank: 23889
2010 IMD Rank: 22711
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1678 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4805
2007 IMD Rank: 4362
2010 IMD Rank: 3127
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7007 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28078
2007 IMD Rank: 24499
2010 IMD Rank: 21071
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1076 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4985
2007 IMD Rank: 4836
2010 IMD Rank: 3909
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3496 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27530
2007 IMD Rank: 24707
2010 IMD Rank: 24034
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1066 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6409
2007 IMD Rank: 4646
2010 IMD Rank: 5343
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -892 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22173
2007 IMD Rank: 23851
2010 IMD Rank: 21281
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1526 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16634
2007 IMD Rank: 14321
2010 IMD Rank: 15108
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1580 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11895
2007 IMD Rank: 13557
2010 IMD Rank: 13475
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1155 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20501
2007 IMD Rank: 18551
2010 IMD Rank: 19346
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -709 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15454
2007 IMD Rank: 13632
2010 IMD Rank: 14745
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -772 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9554
2007 IMD Rank: 10169
2010 IMD Rank: 8782
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1861 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15672
2007 IMD Rank: 16043
2010 IMD Rank: 17533
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1149 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10793
2007 IMD Rank: 11142
2010 IMD Rank: 11942
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2304 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20213
2007 IMD Rank: 13781
2010 IMD Rank: 17909
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2177 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8426
2007 IMD Rank: 7363
2010 IMD Rank: 10603
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -681 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15576
2007 IMD Rank: 12217
2010 IMD Rank: 14895
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1351 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10945
2007 IMD Rank: 9374
2010 IMD Rank: 12296
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 416 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5093
2007 IMD Rank: 3217
2010 IMD Rank: 5509
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4456 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17021
2007 IMD Rank: 17192
2010 IMD Rank: 21477
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1583 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13450
2007 IMD Rank: 10865
2010 IMD Rank: 15033
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -489 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22429
2007 IMD Rank: 19691
2010 IMD Rank: 21940
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2591 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10403
2007 IMD Rank: 7245
2010 IMD Rank: 12994
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -404 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9984
2007 IMD Rank: 7487
2010 IMD Rank: 9580
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -8338 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27218
2007 IMD Rank: 21229
2010 IMD Rank: 18880
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -316 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7859
2007 IMD Rank: 5567
2010 IMD Rank: 7543
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2574 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16335
2007 IMD Rank: 9959
2010 IMD Rank: 13761
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 739 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16663
2007 IMD Rank: 12429
2010 IMD Rank: 17402
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1577 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18936
2007 IMD Rank: 17172
2010 IMD Rank: 20513
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2286 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22120
2007 IMD Rank: 18341
2010 IMD Rank: 24406
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -560 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25001
2007 IMD Rank: 20451
2010 IMD Rank: 24441
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2531 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14348
2007 IMD Rank: 10864
2010 IMD Rank: 16879
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -754 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17805
2007 IMD Rank: 13074
2010 IMD Rank: 17051
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 690 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12543
2007 IMD Rank: 9626
2010 IMD Rank: 13233
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 86 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18496
2007 IMD Rank: 15217
2010 IMD Rank: 18582
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1228 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29519
2007 IMD Rank: 28161
2010 IMD Rank: 28291
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6454 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26410
2007 IMD Rank: 22978
2010 IMD Rank: 19956
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1636 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27995
2007 IMD Rank: 27622
2010 IMD Rank: 26359
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1756 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25493
2007 IMD Rank: 25765
2010 IMD Rank: 27249
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 693 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15413
2007 IMD Rank: 14578
2010 IMD Rank: 16106
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1850 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19404
2007 IMD Rank: 16332
2010 IMD Rank: 17554
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1401 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12216
2007 IMD Rank: 10103
2010 IMD Rank: 10815
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1528 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15735
2007 IMD Rank: 17921
2010 IMD Rank: 14207
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1781 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11472
2007 IMD Rank: 9749
2010 IMD Rank: 9691
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2205 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19282
2007 IMD Rank: 17737
2010 IMD Rank: 17077
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -244 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8383
2007 IMD Rank: 8050
2010 IMD Rank: 8139
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3421 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8906
2007 IMD Rank: 7235
2010 IMD Rank: 5485
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1091 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13896
2007 IMD Rank: 14302
2010 IMD Rank: 12805
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4543 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16551
2007 IMD Rank: 12884
2010 IMD Rank: 12008
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -857 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21673
2007 IMD Rank: 20396
2010 IMD Rank: 20816
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1448 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21783
2007 IMD Rank: 22601
2010 IMD Rank: 23231
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 30 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25358
2007 IMD Rank: 26153
2010 IMD Rank: 25388
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1555 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26969
2007 IMD Rank: 24896
2010 IMD Rank: 25414
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2297 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29215
2007 IMD Rank: 26809
2010 IMD Rank: 26918
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1135 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27045
2007 IMD Rank: 27655
2010 IMD Rank: 25910
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -202 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29141
2007 IMD Rank: 29056
2010 IMD Rank: 28939
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1214 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27159
2007 IMD Rank: 25430
2010 IMD Rank: 25945
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1445 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23595
2007 IMD Rank: 23389
2010 IMD Rank: 22150
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1141 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30067
2007 IMD Rank: 30534
2010 IMD Rank: 31208
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 209 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29402
2007 IMD Rank: 29633
2010 IMD Rank: 29611
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -628 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28268
2007 IMD Rank: 27774
2010 IMD Rank: 27640
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2789 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24794
2007 IMD Rank: 25734
2010 IMD Rank: 27583
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1969 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19407
2007 IMD Rank: 19180
2010 IMD Rank: 17438
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 689 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30119
2007 IMD Rank: 30247
2010 IMD Rank: 30808
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -937 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16440
2007 IMD Rank: 15049
2010 IMD Rank: 15503
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4820 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26981
2007 IMD Rank: 24418
2010 IMD Rank: 22161
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -166 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27237
2007 IMD Rank: 26951
2010 IMD Rank: 27071
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -566 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30908
2007 IMD Rank: 30652
2010 IMD Rank: 30342
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1694 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27722
2007 IMD Rank: 25820
2010 IMD Rank: 26028
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -817 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30351
2007 IMD Rank: 30085
2010 IMD Rank: 29534
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 672 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14694
2007 IMD Rank: 16225
2010 IMD Rank: 15366
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 294 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22245
2007 IMD Rank: 23134
2010 IMD Rank: 22539
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2070 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20456
2007 IMD Rank: 18260
2010 IMD Rank: 22526
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1209 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27400
2007 IMD Rank: 25382
2010 IMD Rank: 26191
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 374 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21515
2007 IMD Rank: 21662
2010 IMD Rank: 21889
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7396 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25469
2007 IMD Rank: 24443
2010 IMD Rank: 18073
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5355 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17487
2007 IMD Rank: 16027
2010 IMD Rank: 22842
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1970 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7290
2007 IMD Rank: 6297
2010 IMD Rank: 5320
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2546 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9576
2007 IMD Rank: 8582
2010 IMD Rank: 7030
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -498 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20445
2007 IMD Rank: 20133
2010 IMD Rank: 19947
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3656 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27167
2007 IMD Rank: 23390
2010 IMD Rank: 23511
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2331 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24104
2007 IMD Rank: 23189
2010 IMD Rank: 21773
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -355 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9015
2007 IMD Rank: 8489
2010 IMD Rank: 8660
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 882 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3538
2007 IMD Rank: 4320
2010 IMD Rank: 4420
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2508 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7867
2007 IMD Rank: 5861
2010 IMD Rank: 5359
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1303 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14409
2007 IMD Rank: 14275
2010 IMD Rank: 13106
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -898 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19767
2007 IMD Rank: 21061
2010 IMD Rank: 18869
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3921 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25133
2007 IMD Rank: 25840
2010 IMD Rank: 21212
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3363 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14121
2007 IMD Rank: 12417
2010 IMD Rank: 10758
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1291 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15699
2007 IMD Rank: 15678
2010 IMD Rank: 14408
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2068 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12814
2007 IMD Rank: 10551
2010 IMD Rank: 10746
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4980 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14983
2007 IMD Rank: 10943
2010 IMD Rank: 10003
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4212 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29774
2007 IMD Rank: 26540
2010 IMD Rank: 25562
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -141 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15186
2007 IMD Rank: 16358
2010 IMD Rank: 15045
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4039 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26398
2007 IMD Rank: 23408
2010 IMD Rank: 22359
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2892 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8158
2007 IMD Rank: 6528
2010 IMD Rank: 5266
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2459 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6709
2007 IMD Rank: 6470
2010 IMD Rank: 4250
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7459 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26396
2007 IMD Rank: 22523
2010 IMD Rank: 18937
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1472 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23590
2007 IMD Rank: 24336
2010 IMD Rank: 25062
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2165 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21478
2007 IMD Rank: 21363
2010 IMD Rank: 23643
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1200 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20043
2007 IMD Rank: 20132
2010 IMD Rank: 21243
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -332 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18783
2007 IMD Rank: 19946
2010 IMD Rank: 18451
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1276 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10385
2007 IMD Rank: 8389
2010 IMD Rank: 11661
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3337 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20234
2007 IMD Rank: 23272
2010 IMD Rank: 23571
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3408 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22158
2007 IMD Rank: 24470
2010 IMD Rank: 25566
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1433 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29530
2007 IMD Rank: 28576
2010 IMD Rank: 28097
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 257 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25395
2007 IMD Rank: 24285
2010 IMD Rank: 25652
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5086 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13761
2007 IMD Rank: 10351
2010 IMD Rank: 8675
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1792 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15252
2007 IMD Rank: 14629
2010 IMD Rank: 13460
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -762 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25305
2007 IMD Rank: 23055
2010 IMD Rank: 24543
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2536 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21047
2007 IMD Rank: 19434
2010 IMD Rank: 18511
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1022 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11453
2007 IMD Rank: 11121
2010 IMD Rank: 10431
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -992 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13491
2007 IMD Rank: 11949
2010 IMD Rank: 12499
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4121 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10581
2007 IMD Rank: 7682
2010 IMD Rank: 6460
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1096 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8013
2007 IMD Rank: 5609
2010 IMD Rank: 6917
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1699 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19794
2007 IMD Rank: 18104
2010 IMD Rank: 18095
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 248 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23137
2007 IMD Rank: 22701
2010 IMD Rank: 23385
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1776 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18776
2007 IMD Rank: 16658
2010 IMD Rank: 17000
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -858 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14428
2007 IMD Rank: 13041
2010 IMD Rank: 13570
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2687 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26600
2007 IMD Rank: 24665
2010 IMD Rank: 23913
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3874 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27331
2007 IMD Rank: 24557
2010 IMD Rank: 23457
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 671 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28934
2007 IMD Rank: 26291
2010 IMD Rank: 29605
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 718 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30387
2007 IMD Rank: 28760
2010 IMD Rank: 31105
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -535 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22229
2007 IMD Rank: 22138
2010 IMD Rank: 21694
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3576 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20667
2007 IMD Rank: 18316
2010 IMD Rank: 17091
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 639 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29866
2007 IMD Rank: 28281
2010 IMD Rank: 30505
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2625 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16037
2007 IMD Rank: 14194
2010 IMD Rank: 18662
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 233 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26621
2007 IMD Rank: 24168
2010 IMD Rank: 26854
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3238 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11775
2007 IMD Rank: 8882
2010 IMD Rank: 8537
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 159 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31592
2007 IMD Rank: 30347
2010 IMD Rank: 31751
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 345 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22437
2007 IMD Rank: 20566
2010 IMD Rank: 22782
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1144 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29942
2007 IMD Rank: 26399
2010 IMD Rank: 28798
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2914 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24882
2007 IMD Rank: 21620
2010 IMD Rank: 21968
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1470 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21618
2007 IMD Rank: 19035
2010 IMD Rank: 23088
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2006 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26724
2007 IMD Rank: 25508
2010 IMD Rank: 28730
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2470 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20878
2007 IMD Rank: 20665
2010 IMD Rank: 23348
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1046 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27672
2007 IMD Rank: 26830
2010 IMD Rank: 26626
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1751 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11056
2007 IMD Rank: 11793
2010 IMD Rank: 12807
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1685 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13052
2007 IMD Rank: 10140
2010 IMD Rank: 11367
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1426 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30682
2007 IMD Rank: 29630
2010 IMD Rank: 29256
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -247 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24557
2007 IMD Rank: 25026
2010 IMD Rank: 24310
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1692 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24310
2007 IMD Rank: 20127
2010 IMD Rank: 22618
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2478 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24468
2007 IMD Rank: 25054
2010 IMD Rank: 26946
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1289 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26480
2007 IMD Rank: 26327
2010 IMD Rank: 27769
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1177 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20788
2007 IMD Rank: 19040
2010 IMD Rank: 19611
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1237 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17843
2007 IMD Rank: 15177
2010 IMD Rank: 16606
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3912 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27026
2007 IMD Rank: 22175
2010 IMD Rank: 23114
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1051 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26806
2007 IMD Rank: 24969
2010 IMD Rank: 25755
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2333 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18619
2007 IMD Rank: 14763
2010 IMD Rank: 16286
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 809 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21507
2007 IMD Rank: 19969
2010 IMD Rank: 22316
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 331 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22573
2007 IMD Rank: 21833
2010 IMD Rank: 22904
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 850 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23974
2007 IMD Rank: 22240
2010 IMD Rank: 24824
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2310 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26679
2007 IMD Rank: 24348
2010 IMD Rank: 28989
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3619 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14819
2007 IMD Rank: 14826
2010 IMD Rank: 18438
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4365 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25118
2007 IMD Rank: 23348
2010 IMD Rank: 29483
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 42 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14096
2007 IMD Rank: 11964
2010 IMD Rank: 14138
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 74 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29773
2007 IMD Rank: 28206
2010 IMD Rank: 29847
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 987 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27459
2007 IMD Rank: 26435
2010 IMD Rank: 28446
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1895 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26966
2007 IMD Rank: 26705
2010 IMD Rank: 25071
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2717 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23120
2007 IMD Rank: 22560
2010 IMD Rank: 25837
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 19 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20751
2007 IMD Rank: 18433
2010 IMD Rank: 20770
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -447 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24959
2007 IMD Rank: 22785
2010 IMD Rank: 24512
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1462 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12323
2007 IMD Rank: 11091
2010 IMD Rank: 13785
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 434 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27514
2007 IMD Rank: 25114
2010 IMD Rank: 27948
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1600 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29287
2007 IMD Rank: 29147
2010 IMD Rank: 30887
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 428 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27917
2007 IMD Rank: 26364
2010 IMD Rank: 28345
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 293 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29905
2007 IMD Rank: 28939
2010 IMD Rank: 30198
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2972 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15216
2007 IMD Rank: 14166
2010 IMD Rank: 18188
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -780 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25707
2007 IMD Rank: 22578
2010 IMD Rank: 24927
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2078 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10823
2007 IMD Rank: 9802
2010 IMD Rank: 8745
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1751 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18861
2007 IMD Rank: 17983
2010 IMD Rank: 20612
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4068 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17857
2007 IMD Rank: 18377
2010 IMD Rank: 21925
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -564 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26240
2007 IMD Rank: 25569
2010 IMD Rank: 25676
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1022 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18176
2007 IMD Rank: 15036
2010 IMD Rank: 19198
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 358 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4757
2007 IMD Rank: 3759
2010 IMD Rank: 5115
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1845 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11142
2007 IMD Rank: 11218
2010 IMD Rank: 12987
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2059 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20025
2007 IMD Rank: 18927
2010 IMD Rank: 22084
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1502 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18125
2007 IMD Rank: 17946
2010 IMD Rank: 16623
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 603 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11126
2007 IMD Rank: 10041
2010 IMD Rank: 11729
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1523 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15018
2007 IMD Rank: 14169
2010 IMD Rank: 16541
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4909 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26978
2007 IMD Rank: 23759
2010 IMD Rank: 22069
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -873 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26256
2007 IMD Rank: 23225
2010 IMD Rank: 25383
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3372 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16561
2007 IMD Rank: 15100
2010 IMD Rank: 13189
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1014 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30527
2007 IMD Rank: 27790
2010 IMD Rank: 29513
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1265 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27170
2007 IMD Rank: 26487
2010 IMD Rank: 25905
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3041 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30315
2007 IMD Rank: 28918
2010 IMD Rank: 27274
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1474 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25405
2007 IMD Rank: 21656
2010 IMD Rank: 23931
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1656 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20806
2007 IMD Rank: 21084
2010 IMD Rank: 22462
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -563 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28434
2007 IMD Rank: 25595
2010 IMD Rank: 27871
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -188 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19376
2007 IMD Rank: 16582
2010 IMD Rank: 19188
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -600 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22003
2007 IMD Rank: 19998
2010 IMD Rank: 21403
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2358 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22026
2007 IMD Rank: 18235
2010 IMD Rank: 19668
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1936 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15593
2007 IMD Rank: 12820
2010 IMD Rank: 13657
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2178 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25066
2007 IMD Rank: 23566
2010 IMD Rank: 27244
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1984 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22320
2007 IMD Rank: 22023
2010 IMD Rank: 24304
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 882 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20372
2007 IMD Rank: 19204
2010 IMD Rank: 21254
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1859 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21215
2007 IMD Rank: 19947
2010 IMD Rank: 23074
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2152 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20923
2007 IMD Rank: 20694
2010 IMD Rank: 23075
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 634 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24013
2007 IMD Rank: 24007
2010 IMD Rank: 24647
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3676 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22460
2007 IMD Rank: 23325
2010 IMD Rank: 26136
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2018 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25953
2007 IMD Rank: 25666
2010 IMD Rank: 27971
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2030 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23416
2007 IMD Rank: 24847
2010 IMD Rank: 25446
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2035 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22224
2007 IMD Rank: 21853
2010 IMD Rank: 24259
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 232 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18431
2007 IMD Rank: 18532
2010 IMD Rank: 18663
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1531 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16724
2007 IMD Rank: 15873
2010 IMD Rank: 18255
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1219 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18687
2007 IMD Rank: 16342
2010 IMD Rank: 17468
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2621 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12195
2007 IMD Rank: 10318
2010 IMD Rank: 9574
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -269 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11675
2007 IMD Rank: 10456
2010 IMD Rank: 11406
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 54 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17684
2007 IMD Rank: 16337
2010 IMD Rank: 17738
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -206 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13163
2007 IMD Rank: 12171
2010 IMD Rank: 12957
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -547 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27236
2007 IMD Rank: 26680
2010 IMD Rank: 26689
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1232 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26135
2007 IMD Rank: 26722
2010 IMD Rank: 27367
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1178 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25330
2007 IMD Rank: 25547
2010 IMD Rank: 26508
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 192 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22268
2007 IMD Rank: 19459
2010 IMD Rank: 22460
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2552 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19695
2007 IMD Rank: 21965
2010 IMD Rank: 22247
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -947 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16496
2007 IMD Rank: 14848
2010 IMD Rank: 15549
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 495 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28259
2007 IMD Rank: 28480
2010 IMD Rank: 28754
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1148 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8725
2007 IMD Rank: 8699
2010 IMD Rank: 7577
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1574 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16479
2007 IMD Rank: 15507
2010 IMD Rank: 14905
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1055 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13050
2007 IMD Rank: 12028
2010 IMD Rank: 11995
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2803 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28253
2007 IMD Rank: 27796
2010 IMD Rank: 25450
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3412 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25487
2007 IMD Rank: 22573
2010 IMD Rank: 22075
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -149 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27598
2007 IMD Rank: 27916
2010 IMD Rank: 27449
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -821 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5626
2007 IMD Rank: 5209
2010 IMD Rank: 4805
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1287 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30059
2007 IMD Rank: 30507
2010 IMD Rank: 31346
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3667 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28133
2007 IMD Rank: 26454
2010 IMD Rank: 24466
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2788 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31080
2007 IMD Rank: 30931
2010 IMD Rank: 28292
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1923 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23560
2007 IMD Rank: 20882
2010 IMD Rank: 21637
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2405 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22644
2007 IMD Rank: 20641
2010 IMD Rank: 20239
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3930 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16916
2007 IMD Rank: 12709
2010 IMD Rank: 12986
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -383 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6077
2007 IMD Rank: 5803
2010 IMD Rank: 5694
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 413 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16256
2007 IMD Rank: 14549
2010 IMD Rank: 16669
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1215 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5454
2007 IMD Rank: 6075
2010 IMD Rank: 4239
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1604 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12494
2007 IMD Rank: 10387
2010 IMD Rank: 10890
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1235 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5358
2007 IMD Rank: 4816
2010 IMD Rank: 4123
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 132 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4518
2007 IMD Rank: 5549
2010 IMD Rank: 4650
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2094 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10099
2007 IMD Rank: 10455
2010 IMD Rank: 8005
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 247 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29617
2007 IMD Rank: 28833
2010 IMD Rank: 29864
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -64 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21631
2007 IMD Rank: 19898
2010 IMD Rank: 21567
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2231 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21288
2007 IMD Rank: 18639
2010 IMD Rank: 19057
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3663 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12571
2007 IMD Rank: 10866
2010 IMD Rank: 8908
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 473 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28161
2007 IMD Rank: 27625
2010 IMD Rank: 28634
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3021 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13575
2007 IMD Rank: 11300
2010 IMD Rank: 10554
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1680 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22601
2007 IMD Rank: 20404
2010 IMD Rank: 20921
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6086 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20318
2007 IMD Rank: 17005
2010 IMD Rank: 14232
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 358 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29298
2007 IMD Rank: 29097
2010 IMD Rank: 29656
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -176 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29959
2007 IMD Rank: 29259
2010 IMD Rank: 29783
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2952 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28969
2007 IMD Rank: 26553
2010 IMD Rank: 26017
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3798 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19260
2007 IMD Rank: 21048
2010 IMD Rank: 23058
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 223 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31648
2007 IMD Rank: 31309
2010 IMD Rank: 31871
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 929 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30225
2007 IMD Rank: 30361
2010 IMD Rank: 31154
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -86 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14559
2007 IMD Rank: 15813
2010 IMD Rank: 14473
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 518 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25126
2007 IMD Rank: 25283
2010 IMD Rank: 25644
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 488 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28085
2007 IMD Rank: 28017
2010 IMD Rank: 28573
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 132 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26515
2007 IMD Rank: 24816
2010 IMD Rank: 26647
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2574 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15958
2007 IMD Rank: 15653
2010 IMD Rank: 13384
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1237 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24739
2007 IMD Rank: 23402
2010 IMD Rank: 23502
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1031 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28758
2007 IMD Rank: 27597
2010 IMD Rank: 27727
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1656 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18543
2007 IMD Rank: 19087
2010 IMD Rank: 20199
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1463 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31412
2007 IMD Rank: 29469
2010 IMD Rank: 29949
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2812 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16877
2007 IMD Rank: 17392
2010 IMD Rank: 19689
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -249 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31459
2007 IMD Rank: 31265
2010 IMD Rank: 31210
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1813 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29918
2007 IMD Rank: 27433
2010 IMD Rank: 28105
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1141 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23399
2007 IMD Rank: 22348
2010 IMD Rank: 22258
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2352 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27381
2007 IMD Rank: 28449
2010 IMD Rank: 29733
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -101 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6868
2007 IMD Rank: 7650
2010 IMD Rank: 6767
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 633 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8126
2007 IMD Rank: 6295
2010 IMD Rank: 8759
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 739 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8082
2007 IMD Rank: 6389
2010 IMD Rank: 8821
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1903 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12297
2007 IMD Rank: 12568
2010 IMD Rank: 10394
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1652 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15633
2007 IMD Rank: 15711
2010 IMD Rank: 13981
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -682 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13459
2007 IMD Rank: 13177
2010 IMD Rank: 12777
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -456 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5054
2007 IMD Rank: 5271
2010 IMD Rank: 4598
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2455 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14230
2007 IMD Rank: 11469
2010 IMD Rank: 11775
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2491 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12920
2007 IMD Rank: 10388
2010 IMD Rank: 10429
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2616 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9240
2007 IMD Rank: 9720
2010 IMD Rank: 11856
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 459 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10456
2007 IMD Rank: 10170
2010 IMD Rank: 10915
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 764 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12164
2007 IMD Rank: 12823
2010 IMD Rank: 12928
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 83 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13302
2007 IMD Rank: 11909
2010 IMD Rank: 13385
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3394 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12661
2007 IMD Rank: 9094
2010 IMD Rank: 9267
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -253 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11457
2007 IMD Rank: 8975
2010 IMD Rank: 11204
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4423 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21290
2007 IMD Rank: 18256
2010 IMD Rank: 16867
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7009 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22282
2007 IMD Rank: 17310
2010 IMD Rank: 15273
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 656 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8223
2007 IMD Rank: 8468
2010 IMD Rank: 8879
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3912 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4628
2007 IMD Rank: 780
2010 IMD Rank: 716
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1177 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4738
2007 IMD Rank: 3362
2010 IMD Rank: 3561
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2781 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8755
2007 IMD Rank: 7004
2010 IMD Rank: 5974
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2303 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10599
2007 IMD Rank: 8025
2010 IMD Rank: 8296
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6345 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22993
2007 IMD Rank: 18133
2010 IMD Rank: 16648
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7285 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18482
2007 IMD Rank: 13236
2010 IMD Rank: 11197
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1494 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10922
2007 IMD Rank: 8471
2010 IMD Rank: 9428
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1712 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13778
2007 IMD Rank: 13494
2010 IMD Rank: 12066
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2172 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10156
2007 IMD Rank: 9924
2010 IMD Rank: 7984
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1699 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10947
2007 IMD Rank: 10373
2010 IMD Rank: 9248
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1616 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14860
2007 IMD Rank: 15446
2010 IMD Rank: 16476
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1648 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16424
2007 IMD Rank: 16185
2010 IMD Rank: 18072
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -709 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10549
2007 IMD Rank: 11331
2010 IMD Rank: 9840
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1939 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6792
2007 IMD Rank: 6193
2010 IMD Rank: 4853
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5041 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14882
2007 IMD Rank: 11292
2010 IMD Rank: 9841
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -951 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11794
2007 IMD Rank: 8597
2010 IMD Rank: 10843
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5029 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14716
2007 IMD Rank: 10740
2010 IMD Rank: 9687
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5342 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12977
2007 IMD Rank: 9589
2010 IMD Rank: 7635
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7755 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15267
2007 IMD Rank: 8853
2010 IMD Rank: 7512
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3008 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7332
2007 IMD Rank: 6546
2010 IMD Rank: 4324
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3155 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15623
2007 IMD Rank: 13171
2010 IMD Rank: 12468
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2739 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9477
2007 IMD Rank: 7351
2010 IMD Rank: 6738
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2330 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10274
2007 IMD Rank: 9128
2010 IMD Rank: 7944
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4837 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14735
2007 IMD Rank: 12716
2010 IMD Rank: 9898
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1569 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13253
2007 IMD Rank: 15524
2010 IMD Rank: 14822
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -543 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6251
2007 IMD Rank: 6237
2010 IMD Rank: 5708
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4538 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16198
2007 IMD Rank: 15723
2010 IMD Rank: 11660
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -248 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11817
2007 IMD Rank: 10909
2010 IMD Rank: 11569
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4050 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16763
2007 IMD Rank: 19510
2010 IMD Rank: 20813
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2404 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22569
2007 IMD Rank: 19799
2010 IMD Rank: 20165
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 634 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7519
2007 IMD Rank: 7834
2010 IMD Rank: 8153
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1654 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9302
2007 IMD Rank: 10597
2010 IMD Rank: 10956
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -146 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23269
2007 IMD Rank: 20205
2010 IMD Rank: 23123
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4416 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20133
2007 IMD Rank: 23802
2010 IMD Rank: 24549
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1952 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8823
2007 IMD Rank: 11815
2010 IMD Rank: 10775
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2869 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11571
2007 IMD Rank: 13384
2010 IMD Rank: 14440
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -737 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6190
2007 IMD Rank: 6141
2010 IMD Rank: 5453
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1362 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12104
2007 IMD Rank: 14014
2010 IMD Rank: 13466
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5163 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24987
2007 IMD Rank: 26596
2010 IMD Rank: 19824
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 693 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20078
2007 IMD Rank: 20921
2010 IMD Rank: 20771
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1472 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2328
2007 IMD Rank: 2148
2010 IMD Rank: 856
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -266 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 728
2007 IMD Rank: 326
2010 IMD Rank: 462
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 193 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4905
2007 IMD Rank: 4539
2010 IMD Rank: 5098
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1586 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6218
2007 IMD Rank: 5637
2010 IMD Rank: 4632
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2756 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13803
2007 IMD Rank: 14147
2010 IMD Rank: 16559
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1954 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5853
2007 IMD Rank: 5094
2010 IMD Rank: 3899
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -636 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6102
2007 IMD Rank: 6330
2010 IMD Rank: 5466
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1803 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18068
2007 IMD Rank: 18499
2010 IMD Rank: 19871
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1977 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13057
2007 IMD Rank: 13145
2010 IMD Rank: 11080
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1480 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17526
2007 IMD Rank: 20922
2010 IMD Rank: 19006
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4813 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16777
2007 IMD Rank: 19492
2010 IMD Rank: 21590
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2615 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22544
2007 IMD Rank: 25080
2010 IMD Rank: 25159
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -665 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3036
2007 IMD Rank: 3389
2010 IMD Rank: 2371
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 291 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9660
2007 IMD Rank: 9293
2010 IMD Rank: 9951
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1364 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15894
2007 IMD Rank: 16923
2010 IMD Rank: 17258
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 735 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7410
2007 IMD Rank: 8350
2010 IMD Rank: 8145
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -898 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2258
2007 IMD Rank: 1964
2010 IMD Rank: 1360
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1275 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7480
2007 IMD Rank: 8239
2010 IMD Rank: 8755
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 577 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19577
2007 IMD Rank: 23733
2010 IMD Rank: 20154
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2368 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18439
2007 IMD Rank: 20426
2010 IMD Rank: 20807
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1092 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2096
2007 IMD Rank: 2796
2010 IMD Rank: 3188
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 248 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8936
2007 IMD Rank: 10087
2010 IMD Rank: 9184
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1148 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7830
2007 IMD Rank: 8225
2010 IMD Rank: 6682
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1600 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29223
2007 IMD Rank: 30955
2010 IMD Rank: 27623
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2501 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29358
2007 IMD Rank: 30682
2010 IMD Rank: 26857
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4016 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23070
2007 IMD Rank: 27461
2010 IMD Rank: 27086
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1269 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27030
2007 IMD Rank: 29536
2010 IMD Rank: 25761
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 5211 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22051
2007 IMD Rank: 25066
2010 IMD Rank: 27262
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1746 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12296
2007 IMD Rank: 16476
2010 IMD Rank: 10550
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -855 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8095
2007 IMD Rank: 9509
2010 IMD Rank: 7240
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 261 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6011
2007 IMD Rank: 6846
2010 IMD Rank: 6272
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -380 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2569
2007 IMD Rank: 2330
2010 IMD Rank: 2189
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -258 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3929
2007 IMD Rank: 3527
2010 IMD Rank: 3671
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1380 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4943
2007 IMD Rank: 6385
2010 IMD Rank: 6323
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -302 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 595
2007 IMD Rank: 350
2010 IMD Rank: 293
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1969 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13094
2007 IMD Rank: 14230
2010 IMD Rank: 15063
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3440 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12885
2007 IMD Rank: 15467
2010 IMD Rank: 16325
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1711 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16446
2007 IMD Rank: 17824
2010 IMD Rank: 18157
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1917 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10062
2007 IMD Rank: 12102
2010 IMD Rank: 11979
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 127 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24748
2007 IMD Rank: 29301
2010 IMD Rank: 24875
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1482 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6174
2007 IMD Rank: 5940
2010 IMD Rank: 7656
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -868 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24759
2007 IMD Rank: 27155
2010 IMD Rank: 23891
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1756 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24269
2007 IMD Rank: 25908
2010 IMD Rank: 26025
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6441 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11994
2007 IMD Rank: 9722
2010 IMD Rank: 5553
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2454 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20671
2007 IMD Rank: 21459
2010 IMD Rank: 23125
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3105 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21563
2007 IMD Rank: 22826
2010 IMD Rank: 24668
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 657 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5276
2007 IMD Rank: 5857
2010 IMD Rank: 5933
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 4048 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14472
2007 IMD Rank: 18360
2010 IMD Rank: 18520
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 7669 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14704
2007 IMD Rank: 17175
2010 IMD Rank: 22373
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2172 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11715
2007 IMD Rank: 14910
2010 IMD Rank: 13887
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2166 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8151
2007 IMD Rank: 9578
2010 IMD Rank: 10317
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4575 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13785
2007 IMD Rank: 13981
2010 IMD Rank: 9210
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1532 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10197
2007 IMD Rank: 11484
2010 IMD Rank: 8665
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 499 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 848
2007 IMD Rank: 1199
2010 IMD Rank: 1347
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 584 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5670
2007 IMD Rank: 5902
2010 IMD Rank: 6254
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1629 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14522
2007 IMD Rank: 16607
2010 IMD Rank: 16151
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2315 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22025
2007 IMD Rank: 24660
2010 IMD Rank: 24340
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3196 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11497
2007 IMD Rank: 14735
2010 IMD Rank: 14693
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 836 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24972
2007 IMD Rank: 23222
2010 IMD Rank: 25808
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3435 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24844
2007 IMD Rank: 25627
2010 IMD Rank: 28279
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1232 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9728
2007 IMD Rank: 11759
2010 IMD Rank: 10960
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1313 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3326
2007 IMD Rank: 3003
2010 IMD Rank: 2013
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2175 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12054
2007 IMD Rank: 13422
2010 IMD Rank: 14229
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3097 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23680
2007 IMD Rank: 26851
2010 IMD Rank: 26777
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 2218 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7971
2007 IMD Rank: 8951
2010 IMD Rank: 10189
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 716 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11884
2007 IMD Rank: 13314
2010 IMD Rank: 12600
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -42 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9201
2007 IMD Rank: 8503
2010 IMD Rank: 9159
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1229 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10510
2007 IMD Rank: 10460
2010 IMD Rank: 11739
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -221 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5493
2007 IMD Rank: 6122
2010 IMD Rank: 5272
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2668 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17510
2007 IMD Rank: 19906
2010 IMD Rank: 14842
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -95 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3208
2007 IMD Rank: 3986
2010 IMD Rank: 3113
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1599 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14323
2007 IMD Rank: 15031
2010 IMD Rank: 12724
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 971 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16347
2007 IMD Rank: 18435
2010 IMD Rank: 17318
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3627 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15129
2007 IMD Rank: 18809
2010 IMD Rank: 11502
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1595 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24501
2007 IMD Rank: 24104
2010 IMD Rank: 26096
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3295 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8244
2007 IMD Rank: 5531
2010 IMD Rank: 4949
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5883 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16886
2007 IMD Rank: 12615
2010 IMD Rank: 11003
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1910 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5380
2007 IMD Rank: 3672
2010 IMD Rank: 3470
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5949 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14142
2007 IMD Rank: 10149
2010 IMD Rank: 8193
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3824 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12080
2007 IMD Rank: 9522
2010 IMD Rank: 8256
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3820 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12058
2007 IMD Rank: 8704
2010 IMD Rank: 8238
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5093 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16112
2007 IMD Rank: 10894
2010 IMD Rank: 11019
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3587 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17060
2007 IMD Rank: 14755
2010 IMD Rank: 13473
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1303 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16181
2007 IMD Rank: 13400
2010 IMD Rank: 14878
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3041 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8775
2007 IMD Rank: 8335
2010 IMD Rank: 5734
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -395 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12764
2007 IMD Rank: 11200
2010 IMD Rank: 12369
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -660 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17223
2007 IMD Rank: 16380
2010 IMD Rank: 16563
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3364 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12588
2007 IMD Rank: 12421
2010 IMD Rank: 9224
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1196 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12337
2007 IMD Rank: 11430
2010 IMD Rank: 11141
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5406 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14891
2007 IMD Rank: 10264
2010 IMD Rank: 9485
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -732 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2774
2007 IMD Rank: 1520
2010 IMD Rank: 2042
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -259 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6899
2007 IMD Rank: 7063
2010 IMD Rank: 6640
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -722 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4360
2007 IMD Rank: 5417
2010 IMD Rank: 3638
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -823 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2736
2007 IMD Rank: 2982
2010 IMD Rank: 1913
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 326 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4865
2007 IMD Rank: 5513
2010 IMD Rank: 5191
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -465 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2384
2007 IMD Rank: 3298
2010 IMD Rank: 1919
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2645 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 6270
2007 IMD Rank: 5823
2010 IMD Rank: 3625
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 826 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1360
2007 IMD Rank: 1431
2010 IMD Rank: 2186
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -152 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1692
2007 IMD Rank: 1591
2010 IMD Rank: 1540
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1500 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14764
2007 IMD Rank: 15378
2010 IMD Rank: 13264
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1797 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8801
2007 IMD Rank: 7350
2010 IMD Rank: 7004
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -673 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10098
2007 IMD Rank: 8444
2010 IMD Rank: 9425
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -95 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3011
2007 IMD Rank: 3604
2010 IMD Rank: 2916
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2583 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11948
2007 IMD Rank: 10687
2010 IMD Rank: 9365
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 153 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7599
2007 IMD Rank: 8104
2010 IMD Rank: 7752
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3145 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22864
2007 IMD Rank: 18315
2010 IMD Rank: 19719
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2896 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14266
2007 IMD Rank: 12278
2010 IMD Rank: 11370
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4349 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26233
2007 IMD Rank: 23379
2010 IMD Rank: 21884
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6493 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 26248
2007 IMD Rank: 21418
2010 IMD Rank: 19755
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4361 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 24624
2007 IMD Rank: 17621
2010 IMD Rank: 20263
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3588 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16177
2007 IMD Rank: 13163
2010 IMD Rank: 12589
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3293 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21083
2007 IMD Rank: 16532
2010 IMD Rank: 17790
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3540 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13591
2007 IMD Rank: 11391
2010 IMD Rank: 10051
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1678 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3765
2007 IMD Rank: 2951
2010 IMD Rank: 2087
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 589 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5579
2007 IMD Rank: 5989
2010 IMD Rank: 6168
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -604 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9517
2007 IMD Rank: 10367
2010 IMD Rank: 8913
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1512 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10936
2007 IMD Rank: 10699
2010 IMD Rank: 9424
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -270 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2793
2007 IMD Rank: 3686
2010 IMD Rank: 2523
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1048 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 10911
2007 IMD Rank: 10383
2010 IMD Rank: 9863
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1038 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2134
2007 IMD Rank: 1957
2010 IMD Rank: 1096
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1391 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2118
2007 IMD Rank: 1317
2010 IMD Rank: 727
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -756 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2647
2007 IMD Rank: 2814
2010 IMD Rank: 1891
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2022 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7384
2007 IMD Rank: 7765
2010 IMD Rank: 5362
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2433 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11261
2007 IMD Rank: 9333
2010 IMD Rank: 8828
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -98 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14549
2007 IMD Rank: 16049
2010 IMD Rank: 14451
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -569 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4787
2007 IMD Rank: 5314
2010 IMD Rank: 4218
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -52 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11530
2007 IMD Rank: 11850
2010 IMD Rank: 11478
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1278 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8332
2007 IMD Rank: 9627
2010 IMD Rank: 7054
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1607 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11102
2007 IMD Rank: 8879
2010 IMD Rank: 9495
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2033 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14153
2007 IMD Rank: 13219
2010 IMD Rank: 12120
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2798 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9887
2007 IMD Rank: 10218
2010 IMD Rank: 7089
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4674 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 22755
2007 IMD Rank: 20434
2010 IMD Rank: 18081
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6213 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23442
2007 IMD Rank: 20603
2010 IMD Rank: 17229
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2523 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13627
2007 IMD Rank: 9759
2010 IMD Rank: 11104
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4231 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13085
2007 IMD Rank: 8384
2010 IMD Rank: 8854
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7144 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20229
2007 IMD Rank: 16824
2010 IMD Rank: 13085
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3961 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16972
2007 IMD Rank: 12666
2010 IMD Rank: 13011
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3929 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21281
2007 IMD Rank: 21318
2010 IMD Rank: 17352
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5053 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 23173
2007 IMD Rank: 19857
2010 IMD Rank: 18120
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2022 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11003
2007 IMD Rank: 10371
2010 IMD Rank: 8981
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2331 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15479
2007 IMD Rank: 13123
2010 IMD Rank: 13148
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6704 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 21973
2007 IMD Rank: 17449
2010 IMD Rank: 15269
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7288 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20434
2007 IMD Rank: 14347
2010 IMD Rank: 13146
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4589 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 18424
2007 IMD Rank: 16005
2010 IMD Rank: 13835
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3894 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16965
2007 IMD Rank: 12561
2010 IMD Rank: 13071
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -169 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16535
2007 IMD Rank: 14546
2010 IMD Rank: 16366
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4081 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11526
2007 IMD Rank: 5775
2010 IMD Rank: 7445
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2446 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14176
2007 IMD Rank: 10959
2010 IMD Rank: 11730
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -598 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9349
2007 IMD Rank: 10180
2010 IMD Rank: 8751
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -982 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9050
2007 IMD Rank: 9432
2010 IMD Rank: 8068
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 666 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12075
2007 IMD Rank: 12756
2010 IMD Rank: 12741
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -6 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13261
2007 IMD Rank: 16639
2010 IMD Rank: 13255
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -917 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7048
2007 IMD Rank: 9006
2010 IMD Rank: 6131
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -187 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15387
2007 IMD Rank: 15397
2010 IMD Rank: 15200
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2416 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13067
2007 IMD Rank: 12117
2010 IMD Rank: 10651
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1412 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5435
2007 IMD Rank: 6345
2010 IMD Rank: 6847
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1851 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 17770
2007 IMD Rank: 15682
2010 IMD Rank: 15919
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4833 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13202
2007 IMD Rank: 11016
2010 IMD Rank: 8369
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -5121 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15799
2007 IMD Rank: 12598
2010 IMD Rank: 10678
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3744 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20504
2007 IMD Rank: 18380
2010 IMD Rank: 16760
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4412 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16594
2007 IMD Rank: 13885
2010 IMD Rank: 12182
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2876 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 16490
2007 IMD Rank: 13121
2010 IMD Rank: 13614
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3447 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 14438
2007 IMD Rank: 12450
2010 IMD Rank: 10991
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -593 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13154
2007 IMD Rank: 11215
2010 IMD Rank: 12561
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3092 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4386
2007 IMD Rank: 1782
2010 IMD Rank: 1294
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3470 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4974
2007 IMD Rank: 3555
2010 IMD Rank: 1504
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -639 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3363
2007 IMD Rank: 2492
2010 IMD Rank: 2724
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1425 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2070
2007 IMD Rank: 909
2010 IMD Rank: 645
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2287 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4702
2007 IMD Rank: 2072
2010 IMD Rank: 2415
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -478 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1371
2007 IMD Rank: 857
2010 IMD Rank: 893
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1458 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2895
2007 IMD Rank: 2313
2010 IMD Rank: 1437
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3812 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 5417
2007 IMD Rank: 3286
2010 IMD Rank: 1605
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3902 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9560
2007 IMD Rank: 6854
2010 IMD Rank: 5658
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2160 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3743
2007 IMD Rank: 2586
2010 IMD Rank: 1583
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1150 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 4055
2007 IMD Rank: 3453
2010 IMD Rank: 2905
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2288 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 12364
2007 IMD Rank: 10462
2010 IMD Rank: 10076
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1868 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13885
2007 IMD Rank: 12562
2010 IMD Rank: 12017
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 743 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27638
2007 IMD Rank: 27470
2010 IMD Rank: 28381
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -7580 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 25728
2007 IMD Rank: 25388
2010 IMD Rank: 18148
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -505 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 27974
2007 IMD Rank: 26978
2010 IMD Rank: 27469
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1053 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 13230
2007 IMD Rank: 13622
2010 IMD Rank: 12177
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -1821 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8052
2007 IMD Rank: 7590
2010 IMD Rank: 6231
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1197 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8297
2007 IMD Rank: 7267
2010 IMD Rank: 9494
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1646 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 2973
2007 IMD Rank: 4530
2010 IMD Rank: 4619
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -705 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 855
2007 IMD Rank: 225
2010 IMD Rank: 150
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -332 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 3395
2007 IMD Rank: 2687
2010 IMD Rank: 3063
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 3430 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 19341
2007 IMD Rank: 22159
2010 IMD Rank: 22771
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 122 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 8546
2007 IMD Rank: 9453
2010 IMD Rank: 8668
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -3480 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15476
2007 IMD Rank: 15216
2010 IMD Rank: 11996
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 165 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 32040
2007 IMD Rank: 32164
2010 IMD Rank: 32205
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 315 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31687
2007 IMD Rank: 32048
2010 IMD Rank: 32002
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -4569 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29562
2007 IMD Rank: 29370
2010 IMD Rank: 24993
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -2183 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 30334
2007 IMD Rank: 29450
2010 IMD Rank: 28151
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 437 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 28549
2007 IMD Rank: 29505
2010 IMD Rank: 28986
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -575 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 11072
2007 IMD Rank: 11868
2010 IMD Rank: 10497
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 587 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 29857
2007 IMD Rank: 30653
2010 IMD Rank: 30444
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1276 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31009
2007 IMD Rank: 31587
2010 IMD Rank: 32285
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -250 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 31553
2007 IMD Rank: 30575
2010 IMD Rank: 31303
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 349 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 32027
2007 IMD Rank: 32249
2010 IMD Rank: 32376
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was -593 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 1592
2007 IMD Rank: 2082
2010 IMD Rank: 999
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 1031 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 9533
2007 IMD Rank: 11069
2010 IMD Rank: 10564
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 78 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 852
2007 IMD Rank: 1015
2010 IMD Rank: 930
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 352 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 15902
2007 IMD Rank: 16191
2010 IMD Rank: 16254
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 714 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7468
2007 IMD Rank: 7310
2010 IMD Rank: 8182
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 278 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 7654
2007 IMD Rank: 8950
2010 IMD Rank: 7932
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011
This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). As the shades of blue get darker, the level of deprivation decreases.
The change in rank for this LSOA between 2004 and 2010 was 684 (negative values indicate an area became relatively more deprived, positive values indicate the opposite).
2004 IMD Rank: 20511
2007 IMD Rank: 22568
2010 IMD Rank: 21195
Note: Ranks are relative and do not indicate the absolute level of deprivation in an area.
Data Source: CLG, 2011Mapping by Alasdair Rae, 2011