Skip to content
LiverpoolCountsLiverpool, in numbers.Local help →

Liverpool · England

Issues

Liverpool council area. Every figure carries its own date.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats drawn from the available evidence. These are analytical judgements, not an official council assessment. Where a national comparison is available, lower housing costs, lower reported poor health and higher qualification shares are treated as relative strengths; this does not prove affordability or service quality.

Strengths

strength

Make room for homes people can afford

Average private rent is £913 a month (August 2026) in Liverpool council area. This is £546 lower than the England average for the same month. Homes rented privately ranged from 7.1% in Mossley Hill to 72.6% in City Centre North — a gap of 65.5 percentage points.

Housing costs matter most alongside earnings and the number of affordable homes available. A local average cannot tell us whether a particular household can afford its home.

What could help →

Weaknesses

weakness

Bring support closer to people in poor health

8% of people reported bad or very bad health in Liverpool council area (21 March 2021). Across England, the figure was 5.2%. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.7% in Brownlow Hill to 13.2% in Croxteth — a gap of 10.5 percentage points.

This is how residents described their health in the census. It can reveal differences between neighbourhoods, but does not diagnose illness or measure current waiting times. Age profiles differ between places, so these shares do not measure service quality.

What could help →

Opportunities

opportunity

Separate North Docks governance from site delivery

The proposed North Docks development body is entering a statutory stage, while King Edward Triangle’s first building has planning approval with further requirements.

Proposed response: Make clear which decisions belong to the proposed area-wide body and which remain with individual developers.

What could help →

opportunity

Make community-led housing practical to deliver

Liverpool has an asset-disposal route for community-led housing, but the first round has closed and later rounds are unannounced.

Proposed response: Explain which first-round proposals are progressing and what groups need before a future round.

Evidence

What could help →

opportunity

Plan homes and care around an older population

15.3% of people in Liverpool council area were aged 65 or over (21 March 2021). People aged 65 or over ranged from 2.1% in Brownlow Hill to 31.3% in Woolton Village — a gap of 29.2 percentage points.

Age alone does not mean poor health or a need for care. Accessible homes, reliable transport and support close to home matter as people get older.

What could help →

opportunity

Connect local skills to local opportunities

30.8% of people aged 16 or over had a degree or equivalent (21 March 2021) in Liverpool council area. Across England, the figure was 33.9%. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 5.5% in Waterfront North to 35.5% in Croxteth — a gap of 30 percentage points.

Qualifications show one part of the skills available locally. They do not show whether people have secure jobs or work that uses those skills.

What could help →

opportunity

Target safety work where problems repeat

Mapped police records are available for neighbourhoods in Liverpool council area.

Published locations are approximate and some crimes are not mapped. Counts show recorded incidents, not the chance of an individual becoming a victim.

What could help →

opportunity

Turn published plans into visible progress

3 named local projects or plans have official evidence in this collection.

A published plan makes responsibilities and intentions easier to inspect. It does not prove that funding is secured or that promised benefits have arrived.

What could help →

opportunity

Target support where disadvantages overlap

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 7.1% in Waterfront South to 39% in Everton East — a gap of 31.9 percentage points.

These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.

What could help →

Threats

The evidence gathered here does not yet support a distinct finding in this category.

Which response goes with each issue?