People aged 65 or over
25%21 March 2021 · North Yorkshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
153,828 out of 615,491.
Source and method →Ripon · England
Community life
North Yorkshire council area. Every figure carries its own date.
A place is more than its average house price. The census shows who lives here and some of the pressures households face.
People reporting bad or very bad health
4.7%21 March 2021 · North Yorkshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
28,671 out of 615,491.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
46.7%21 March 2021 · North Yorkshire
The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All households
128,086 out of 274,381.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
13.7%21 March 2021 · North Yorkshire
The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All households
37,617 out of 274,381.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
16.1%21 March 2021 · North Yorkshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
82,990 out of 516,180.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
34.7%21 March 2021 · North Yorkshire
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
178,949 out of 516,180.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
2.5% to 8.5%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.5% in Washburn & Birstwith to 8.5% in Castle — a gap of 6 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 89 of 89 current wards with comparable figures.
Residents described their own health. Differences in age matter, so this is a prompt to investigate needs, not a score for local health services.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
Source and method →
People aged 65 or over
8.4% to 37.8%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 8.4% in Hipswell & Colburn to 37.8% in Filey — a gap of 29.4 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 89 of 89 current wards with comparable figures.
Age helps locate demand for accessible homes, transport and support. Being older does not itself mean someone needs care.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
Source and method →
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
8.4% to 26.5%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 8.4% in Oatlands & Pannal to 26.5% in Whitby Streonshalh — a gap of 18.1 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 89 of 89 current wards with comparable figures.
Formal qualifications are only one part of someone's skills. Training decisions also need current vacancies, employment and residents' experience.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
Source and method →
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
6.1% to 28.8%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 6.1% in Oatlands & Pannal to 28.8% in Eastfield — a gap of 22.7 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 89 of 89 current wards with comparable figures.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
Source and method →
Local places and initiatives
Deverell and Claro Barracks, Laver Banks and former Engineering Park
Ripon Barracks redevelopment
Former military land is planned for homes, a school, community facilities and green spaces. Development will be phased as different parts of the site become available.
Land acquired; planning permission and phased delivery plan · evidence dated 2025-06-17
Responsible body: Homes England with the Ministry of Defence and North Yorkshire Council
Latest evidence: The government confirms the land sale and permission for 1,300 homes. The vacant Deverell site is first, while later land follows the Royal Engineers’ relocation. Homes England must coordinate infrastructure before construction.
Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Homes England acquires Ripon Barracks →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Match Ripon Barracks homes to land release and infrastructure →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Ripon city and its role as a rural service centre
Ripon investment plan
Local priorities are being brought together to guide bids for improvements to businesses, heritage, green space and connections.
Investment plan in development after initial engagement · source does not state a status date
Responsible body: North Yorkshire Council and York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority
Latest evidence: The council says the initial survey closed on 30 November 2025 and the plan is being shaped around emerging themes. It explicitly describes guidance for future funding bids.
Next thing to establish: What dated decision or progress report confirms the current stage?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Vision for the future of Ripon →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Ripon Town Hall, Market Place South
Ripon Town Hall: proposed transfer and community use
The proposed transfer to Ripon City Council aims to support restoration, heritage protection and wider public use of the building.
Transfer approved in principle, subject to terms and conditions · evidence dated 2026-04-21
Responsible body: North Yorkshire Council and Ripon City Council
Latest evidence: The Executive’s published minutes record approval in principle to transfer the Town Hall below market value if conditions are met. Restoration and wider public access were stated ambitions. The decision does not confirm a completed transfer, funded restoration or reopened facilities.
Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- No verified current ward footprint is assigned. The named location or council-wide remit does not establish benefits in every ward.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Ripon Town Hall: proposed transfer and community use →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Tie Town Hall ownership to sustainable public access →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →