This chart shows the change in deprivation rank of the named LSOA between 2004 and 2010, where a rank of 1 is most deprived and a rank of 32,482 is least deprived. The most deprived 20% are in red, the next most deprived 20% are in yellow (as in map key above). 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 |