County Durham, in numbers

Average home prices reached £140,000 in County Durham.

County Durham council area. July 2026. Every figure carries its own date.

County Durham covers coastal towns, former mining communities, market towns and rural areas as well as Durham city. Seaham has occupied business premises and Sedgefield has an opened battery research facility. Jobs, transport and cleaner air need separate measures of progress.

The short version

Average home price over time

August 1996 to July 2026

County Durham council area · Cash prices, before allowing for inflation

Reviewed figures: January 1995 to July 2026. The chart opens on the latest 30 years; choose All history for the full reviewed record.

From To

Shown on this chart: £38,658 in August 1996; £140,447 in July 2026. 263.3% higher between these observations.

The line joins consecutive published observations.

Full history context

Average home prices rose from £38,000 to £140,000 between January 1995 and July 2026.

July 2025 to July 2026: £6,000 more per home (4.7% higher).

Cash prices, before allowing for inflation. Changes do not show affordability without local earnings and household circumstances.

Data table and workings

Published UK House Price Index average price, all property types and all buyers, not seasonally adjusted. Entire series comes from the 2026-07 official full-file release, preserving its historical revisions and exact area codes. It is a mix-adjusted average, not the median price paid.

Prices are in pounds at the time, not adjusted for inflation.

Whole local authority area; not a typical home listing or the budget needed by a first-time buyer.

Provisional estimates can be revised. Historical boundaries follow the exact published source code; no old-code series has been relabelled.

The table retains the full reviewed history when the chart is shortened. Preset ranges end at this measure’s latest published period. Yearly windows count published annual periods; monthly windows count months. Gaps are never filled with estimates.

Average home price over time — County Durham council area: full reviewed history
Period	£
January 1995	38,128
February 1995	37,704
March 1995	37,617
April 1995	37,134
May 1995	37,492
June 1995	37,891
July 1995	38,565
August 1995	37,918
September 1995	37,331
October 1995	36,894
November 1995	37,119
December 1995	37,639
January 1996	37,621
February 1996	37,730
March 1996	37,213
April 1996	37,341
May 1996	38,181
June 1996	39,104
July 1996	38,958
August 1996	38,658
September 1996	38,097
October 1996	38,680
November 1996	38,808
December 1996	38,910
January 1997	38,621
February 1997	37,671
March 1997	37,516
April 1997	37,681
May 1997	38,553
June 1997	39,456
July 1997	40,481
August 1997	40,888
September 1997	40,347
October 1997	39,613
November 1997	39,211
December 1997	39,530
January 1998	39,791
February 1998	39,455
March 1998	39,333
April 1998	39,324
May 1998	39,832
June 1998	40,139
July 1998	40,369
August 1998	40,781
September 1998	40,969
October 1998	40,754
November 1998	40,385
December 1998	40,303
January 1999	40,145
February 1999	39,637
March 1999	39,425
April 1999	39,552
May 1999	40,230
June 1999	40,983
July 1999	41,787
August 1999	42,849
September 1999	42,611
October 1999	42,713
November 1999	42,524
December 1999	43,161
January 2000	42,999
February 2000	43,150
March 2000	42,883
April 2000	43,324
May 2000	43,400
June 2000	43,964
July 2000	44,676
August 2000	45,327
September 2000	44,800
October 2000	43,765
November 2000	43,360
December 2000	43,683
January 2001	43,734
February 2001	43,437
March 2001	42,795
April 2001	43,255
May 2001	43,471
June 2001	44,453
July 2001	44,938
August 2001	46,058
September 2001	46,673
October 2001	47,152
November 2001	47,110
December 2001	46,908
January 2002	46,578
February 2002	46,356
March 2002	46,816
April 2002	47,734
May 2002	49,129
June 2002	50,051
July 2002	51,226
August 2002	51,976
September 2002	52,684
October 2002	53,653
November 2002	54,854
December 2002	56,004
January 2003	56,808
February 2003	57,427
March 2003	58,683
April 2003	60,226
May 2003	61,252
June 2003	62,691
July 2003	64,199
August 2003	66,457
September 2003	67,964
October 2003	68,956
November 2003	69,756
December 2003	71,221
January 2004	72,344
February 2004	72,282
March 2004	73,268
April 2004	75,864
May 2004	80,578
June 2004	84,485
July 2004	87,741
August 2004	89,774
September 2004	91,745
October 2004	92,990
November 2004	93,632
December 2004	94,785
January 2005	94,230
February 2005	95,677
March 2005	95,320
April 2005	97,280
May 2005	98,468
June 2005	100,118
July 2005	101,246
August 2005	102,904
September 2005	104,315
October 2005	104,466
November 2005	104,578
December 2005	105,235
January 2006	107,231
February 2006	106,788
March 2006	106,391
April 2006	106,232
May 2006	106,882
June 2006	109,574
July 2006	109,979
August 2006	111,660
September 2006	110,784
October 2006	111,333
November 2006	111,119
December 2006	112,109
January 2007	111,929
February 2007	111,438
March 2007	111,147
April 2007	111,562
May 2007	113,325
June 2007	113,654
July 2007	115,694
August 2007	116,707
September 2007	117,802
October 2007	118,371
November 2007	118,180
December 2007	117,944
January 2008	115,616
February 2008	115,186
March 2008	113,555
April 2008	114,630
May 2008	115,156
June 2008	116,308
July 2008	116,554
August 2008	116,034
September 2008	114,076
October 2008	111,120
November 2008	106,934
December 2008	104,222
January 2009	102,356
February 2009	99,489
March 2009	98,697
April 2009	97,717
May 2009	99,397
June 2009	99,491
July 2009	100,096
August 2009	101,057
September 2009	103,117
October 2009	105,080
November 2009	105,238
December 2009	105,786
January 2010	103,709
February 2010	102,731
March 2010	101,846
April 2010	102,261
May 2010	102,745
June 2010	102,652
July 2010	103,020
August 2010	104,533
September 2010	104,560
October 2010	104,350
November 2010	102,283
December 2010	101,290
January 2011	99,236
February 2011	96,909
March 2011	94,998
April 2011	95,838
May 2011	98,399
June 2011	99,062
July 2011	99,499
August 2011	98,420
September 2011	98,683
October 2011	97,379
November 2011	97,624
December 2011	97,894
January 2012	96,392
February 2012	95,177
March 2012	93,992
April 2012	95,305
May 2012	95,816
June 2012	95,449
July 2012	95,982
August 2012	96,672
September 2012	97,298
October 2012	97,662
November 2012	97,080
December 2012	96,437
January 2013	94,732
February 2013	92,995
March 2013	92,720
April 2013	92,292
May 2013	93,600
June 2013	93,774
July 2013	95,618
August 2013	96,391
September 2013	96,976
October 2013	94,277
November 2013	92,505
December 2013	92,639
January 2014	92,263
February 2014	89,993
March 2014	87,820
April 2014	89,348
May 2014	92,571
June 2014	94,809
July 2014	95,709
August 2014	96,081
September 2014	94,648
October 2014	93,702
November 2014	91,838
December 2014	91,707
January 2015	91,274
February 2015	92,045
March 2015	91,473
April 2015	93,051
May 2015	94,116
June 2015	96,606
July 2015	96,467
August 2015	96,351
September 2015	96,273
October 2015	95,407
November 2015	94,939
December 2015	94,695
January 2016	94,982
February 2016	94,934
March 2016	95,186
April 2016	94,713
May 2016	94,724
June 2016	94,996
July 2016	97,310
August 2016	98,695
September 2016	98,779
October 2016	97,154
November 2016	95,874
December 2016	95,730
January 2017	95,693
February 2017	96,080
March 2017	94,145
April 2017	93,672
May 2017	94,515
June 2017	98,150
July 2017	100,656
August 2017	101,491
September 2017	100,942
October 2017	100,077
November 2017	99,852
December 2017	99,792
January 2018	98,366
February 2018	97,732
March 2018	95,036
April 2018	96,464
May 2018	97,317
June 2018	97,842
July 2018	100,437
August 2018	100,051
September 2018	102,422
October 2018	101,587
November 2018	101,208
December 2018	100,055
January 2019	96,723
February 2019	94,866
March 2019	94,278
April 2019	97,806
May 2019	99,759
June 2019	100,842
July 2019	99,534
August 2019	100,528
September 2019	101,433
October 2019	101,186
November 2019	100,009
December 2019	99,299
January 2020	98,291
February 2020	97,891
March 2020	97,017
April 2020	95,499
May 2020	96,014
June 2020	96,899
July 2020	99,254
August 2020	99,787
September 2020	100,749
October 2020	102,776
November 2020	104,916
December 2020	106,502
January 2021	108,713
February 2021	109,855
March 2021	111,253
April 2021	110,871
May 2021	112,197
June 2021	116,340
July 2021	117,512
August 2021	118,028
September 2021	118,871
October 2021	119,954
November 2021	119,425
December 2021	116,631
January 2022	115,920
February 2022	116,984
March 2022	117,091
April 2022	119,004
May 2022	119,723
June 2022	121,286
July 2022	123,773
August 2022	126,131
September 2022	127,897
October 2022	129,172
November 2022	129,312
December 2022	129,401
January 2023	128,073
February 2023	125,194
March 2023	121,877
April 2023	119,339
May 2023	119,425
June 2023	120,457
July 2023	121,742
August 2023	123,791
September 2023	124,749
October 2023	125,255
November 2023	124,857
December 2023	125,647
January 2024	124,237
February 2024	125,048
March 2024	124,449
April 2024	123,001
May 2024	122,340
June 2024	124,320
July 2024	127,014
August 2024	127,643
September 2024	128,087
October 2024	129,900
November 2024	132,005
December 2024	133,069
January 2025	132,518
February 2025	133,074
March 2025	135,056
April 2025	132,482
May 2025	131,403
June 2025	129,112
July 2025	134,083
August 2025	134,262
September 2025	134,719
October 2025	135,576
November 2025	137,883
December 2025	139,166
January 2026	136,718
February 2026	136,409
March 2026	135,458
April 2026	137,477
May 2026	137,726
June 2026	137,391
July 2026	140,447

Source →

People living in the area

539,146

Mid-2025 · County Durham council area

Show the workings

Published mid-year estimate for the whole local authority area. This is not automatically the population of the named city settlement.

All usual residents

Source and method →

Average home price

£140,000

July 2026 · County Durham council area

Show the workings

Shown to the nearest £1,000. Published value: £140,447.

Homes in the local authority area

Source and method →

Average monthly rent

£650

August 2026 · County Durham council area

Show the workings

Official local housing data feed. House prices are provisional, not seasonally adjusted; rents use the Price Index of Private Rents. Local short-term estimates are variable. Country references use only the explicitly country-coded ctry object, never the local place object.

Homes in the local authority area

Source and method →

Compare nearby places and England →

Look beneath the average

Homes rented privately

9% to 38.3%

Homes rented privately ranged from 9% in North Lodge to 38.3% in Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe — a gap of 29.3 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 51 of 51 current wards with comparable figures.

A larger private-rented sector changes the mix of housing advice, enforcement and tenant support needed. It does not tell us whether individual homes are affordable or safe.

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.

Homes rented privately · 21 March 2021
Ward	Share	Count	Population or households covered
North Lodge	9%	193	2,137
Chester-le-Street South	9.6%	436	4,521
Pittington & Sherburn	10.9%	232	2,120
Castle Eden & Passfield	11.1%	286	2,572
Lumley & West Rainton	11.9%	521	4,393
Lanchester & Burnhope	12.5%	327	2,621
Aycliffe North & Middridge	13.2%	624	4,740
Seaham	13.4%	692	5,159
Thornley & Wheatley Hill	13.5%	351	2,608
Derwent & Pont Valley	13.8%	1,058	7,639
Chilton	13.9%	304	2,188
Sacriston & Witton Gilbert	14.2%	652	4,606
Spennymoor	14.2%	717	5,033
Deerness	14.2%	757	5,313
Sedgefield	14.3%	610	4,265
Pelton	14.4%	985	6,841
Brandon	14.6%	797	5,459
Tudhoe	15%	753	5,020
Framwellgate & Newton Hall	15.1%	950	6,297
Benfieldside	15.2%	716	4,696
Aycliffe South	15.4%	1,124	7,299
West Auckland	15.8%	737	4,671
Consett South	15.9%	365	2,301
Bowburn & Coxhoe	16.1%	1,164	7,218
Crook	16.5%	1,137	6,884
Easington & Shotton	16.6%	1,230	7,414
Trimdon & Wingate	16.7%	852	5,110
Evenwood	16.7%	375	2,242
Barnard Castle	16.7%	431	2,575
Willington & Hunwick	16.9%	702	4,152
Murton	16.9%	830	4,898
Weardale	17%	759	4,474
Delves Lane	17.2%	746	4,339
Belmont	17.2%	891	5,180
Langley & Esh	17.3%	426	2,456
Lower Teesdale	17.8%	659	3,709
Annfield Plain & Tanfield	17.9%	900	5,030
Peterlee	18.1%	947	5,223
Chester-le-Street North	18.3%	875	4,773
Dalton & Dawdon	18.5%	898	4,867
Stanley	19.5%	981	5,038
Blackhalls & Hesledens	20%	541	2,702
Bishop Auckland	20.1%	1,547	7,687
Shildon & Dene Valley	21.2%	1,689	7,949
Horden & Dene House	22%	1,163	5,282
Ferryhill	23.5%	1,240	5,284
Craghead & South Moor	23.7%	1,302	5,494
Upper Teesdale	25.3%	542	2,144
Neville's Cross	25.9%	796	3,071
Consett North	26.7%	744	2,791
Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe	38.3%	1,615	4,214

Source and method →

What could respond to this pattern →

People reporting bad or very bad health

1.4% to 12.4%

People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 1.4% in Neville's Cross to 12.4% in Horden & Dene House — a gap of 11.1 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 51 of 51 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.

People reporting bad or very bad health · 21 March 2021
Ward	Share	Count	Population or households covered
Neville's Cross	1.4%	176	12,897
Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe	4.2%	577	13,646
North Lodge	4.3%	205	4,716
Upper Teesdale	4.7%	215	4,592
Lower Teesdale	5.2%	425	8,230
Belmont	5.6%	614	11,013
Sedgefield	5.7%	538	9,417
Aycliffe North & Middridge	5.8%	623	10,744
Lanchester & Burnhope	5.9%	335	5,692
Barnard Castle	5.9%	318	5,349
Framwellgate & Newton Hall	5.9%	872	14,659
Benfieldside	6%	618	10,364
Delves Lane	6.3%	636	10,119
Chester-le-Street South	6.5%	634	9,789
Evenwood	6.6%	322	4,881
Pelton	6.7%	992	14,760
Pittington & Sherburn	6.7%	309	4,594
Consett South	6.8%	358	5,265
Lumley & West Rainton	7.1%	678	9,606
Derwent & Pont Valley	7.1%	1,179	16,546
Tudhoe	7.2%	773	10,715
Weardale	7.2%	688	9,525
Seaham	7.2%	827	11,444
Chilton	7.4%	350	4,700
Spennymoor	7.5%	827	11,070
Sacriston & Witton Gilbert	7.6%	763	10,105
Langley & Esh	7.7%	414	5,397
West Auckland	7.7%	802	10,453
Brandon	7.7%	897	11,650
Crook	7.7%	1,157	15,022
Bowburn & Coxhoe	7.8%	1,210	15,471
Deerness	7.8%	897	11,455
Annfield Plain & Tanfield	7.9%	855	10,848
Willington & Hunwick	7.9%	741	9,326
Chester-le-Street North	8%	790	9,869
Castle Eden & Passfield	8%	465	5,786
Consett North	8.5%	484	5,681
Stanley	8.5%	917	10,738
Murton	8.6%	910	10,622
Bishop Auckland	8.8%	1,457	16,541
Trimdon & Wingate	8.8%	1,008	11,438
Dalton & Dawdon	8.8%	989	11,208
Aycliffe South	8.9%	1,428	16,067
Shildon & Dene Valley	9.1%	1,540	16,891
Ferryhill	9.3%	1,003	10,756
Peterlee	9.4%	1,127	11,994
Craghead & South Moor	9.5%	1,145	12,023
Easington & Shotton	9.7%	1,564	16,119
Thornley & Wheatley Hill	10%	570	5,692
Blackhalls & Hesledens	10.8%	602	5,555
Horden & Dene House	12.4%	1,369	11,008

Source and method →

What could respond to this pattern →

People aged 65 or over

10.3% to 30.3%

People aged 65 or over ranged from 10.3% in Neville's Cross to 30.3% in Barnard Castle — a gap of 20 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 51 of 51 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.

People aged 65 or over · 21 March 2021
Ward	Share	Count	Population or households covered
Neville's Cross	10.3%	1,335	12,917
Elvet, Gilesgate & Shincliffe	11.9%	1,624	13,642
Peterlee	16%	1,917	12,000
Craghead & South Moor	16%	1,921	12,009
Delves Lane	16.9%	1,714	10,113
Consett South	18%	951	5,273
Trimdon & Wingate	18.9%	2,170	11,457
Brandon	19%	2,213	11,642
Tudhoe	19.1%	2,046	10,702
Chilton	19.3%	908	4,704
Easington & Shotton	19.5%	3,143	16,138
Deerness	19.6%	2,246	11,451
Murton	19.7%	2,093	10,635
Bowburn & Coxhoe	19.7%	3,049	15,473
Dalton & Dawdon	19.8%	2,214	11,208
Shildon & Dene Valley	20.2%	3,422	16,910
Sacriston & Witton Gilbert	20.6%	2,080	10,113
Pelton	20.6%	3,045	14,779
Consett North	21.1%	1,195	5,675
Thornley & Wheatley Hill	21.1%	1,204	5,704
Seaham	21.3%	2,434	11,435
Langley & Esh	21.4%	1,157	5,395
West Auckland	21.5%	2,241	10,445
Benfieldside	21.6%	2,234	10,363
Spennymoor	21.7%	2,397	11,071
Aycliffe South	21.7%	3,488	16,065
Aycliffe North & Middridge	21.8%	2,338	10,748
Crook	21.8%	3,274	15,008
Willington & Hunwick	21.9%	2,046	9,336
Horden & Dene House	22%	2,426	11,012
Bishop Auckland	22.3%	3,686	16,533
Annfield Plain & Tanfield	22.3%	2,422	10,856
Stanley	22.6%	2,421	10,722
Castle Eden & Passfield	23.2%	1,332	5,740
Framwellgate & Newton Hall	23.6%	3,460	14,673
Derwent & Pont Valley	23.6%	3,909	16,574
Chester-le-Street North	23.7%	2,348	9,895
Pittington & Sherburn	23.9%	1,101	4,612
Ferryhill	23.9%	2,571	10,736
Chester-le-Street South	24.2%	2,369	9,787
Sedgefield	24.5%	2,312	9,419
Lumley & West Rainton	24.6%	2,368	9,612
Blackhalls & Hesledens	26.2%	1,458	5,571
Evenwood	26.4%	1,291	4,899
Belmont	26.4%	2,917	11,038
Lower Teesdale	27.7%	2,280	8,223
North Lodge	28%	1,325	4,729
Lanchester & Burnhope	28.2%	1,601	5,681
Weardale	28.5%	2,708	9,512
Upper Teesdale	29%	1,325	4,575
Barnard Castle	30.3%	1,618	5,340

Source and method →

What could respond to this pattern →

Explore all 51 wards →

What could change things?

The action plan connects local evidence to proposed next steps. Announced projects and proposed responses are shown separately.

opportunity

Tie Aykley Heads infrastructure to viable next stages

Aykley Heads has staged infrastructure funding, while later development proposals still require full business cases.

Proposed response: Make each infrastructure commitment traceable to the development stage it enables.

Evidence

What could help →

threat

Tie cleaner-air measures to results on affected streets

Durham’s cleaner-air plan has been adopted, but the test is what happens to pollution and travel choices afterwards.

Proposed response: Publish delivery progress alongside comparable monitoring results and the costs of each measure.

Evidence 1 · Evidence 2

What could help →

strength

Build on occupied employment space at Seaham

The council’s economic development service reports occupied industrial premises. Future expansion is a separate proposal.

This is a local delivery priority; the wider authority totals cannot establish this project’s effects.

Evidence

What could help →

Read the action plan →

Local work to follow

Aykley Heads, Durham city

Aykley Heads and Durham Innovation District

Plans would bring new workspaces to the former County Hall area near the railway station. Infrastructure funding is intended to prepare the site for development.

Development zone endorsed; staged funding approved · evidence dated 2026-03-17

Responsible body: Durham County Council, North East Combined Authority and Durham University

What the source says: Cabinet approved £12 million for site infrastructure and up to £15 million indicative first-phase funding, partly repayable. Later proposals still require full business cases.

Progress, funding and source

Cost: Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding: £12 million capital allocation; up to £15 million indicative and partly repayable. Up to £300,000 development funding is to be matched by Durham County Council.
Area covered: Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Cabinet decision: Durham Mayoral Development Zone – Durham Innovation District →

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Tie Aykley Heads infrastructure to viable next stages →

Turn Durham’s approved investment into usable sites →

Connect local skills to local opportunities →

How to track delivery →

Aykley Heads, Durham city

The Light cultural venue

The former infantry museum and art gallery has reopened as a cultural and community venue, with exhibitions and spaces for learning and events.

Opened to the public · evidence dated 2026-08-24

Responsible body: Durham County Council

What the source says: The official destination service reports the council venue opened across 22–23 August 2026. This confirms the opening rather than relying on the earlier announced date.

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.

Future is bright for The Light following opening weekend →

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Connect local skills to local opportunities →

Target support where disadvantages overlap →

How to track delivery →

Durham City air-quality management area; some supporting measures cover County Durham

Durham City cleaner-air action plan

The adopted plan sets out 23 actions on transport, parking and cleaner vehicles. Its purpose is to reduce pollution in the city’s affected streets, with progress checked through monitoring.

2025–2030 plan adopted in March 2025; individual actions have different delivery stages · evidence dated 2025-03-12

Responsible body: Durham County Council

What the source says: Cabinet adopted the 2025–2030 plan. It records 23 actions and annual progress reporting. The supporting plan distinguishes measured pollution from modelling and includes cleaner buses, park-and-ride improvements and better monitoring. Adoption does not show that every action is complete.

Progress, funding and source

Cost: Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding: Not established by the evidence checked.
Area covered: Unmapped: the named sites or programme area have not been matched to the ward boundaries used by these statistics. No ward-wide effect is inferred.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Cabinet decisions, 12 March 2025: Air Quality Action Plan, pages 10–11 →

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Tie cleaner-air measures to results on affected streets →

Target support where disadvantages overlap →

How to track delivery →

All reviewed projects →

What this local evidence covers

51 of 51 wards

Have at least one valid census comparison with the whole council. Missing measures stay visible.

Read the neighbourhood evidence →

5 reviewed plans and projects

4 have a source-dated stage; 1 have some funding evidence; 0 have some cost evidence. These counts do not prove that funding or costs are complete.

Check each project →

0 verified ward links

Project locations cannot be treated as a map of who benefits. Each record explains any verified ward association.

Read the sources and limits →

What is still missing

The reviewed local schemes are a selected evidence collection, not a complete council capital programme.

Current service capacity, incomes, waiting lists, school demand and project outcomes need additional verified local evidence before firm claims can be made.

The Innovation District’s indicative funding must not be treated as an unconditional grant or full construction cost. Completed workspace, occupancy and local employment effects still need monitoring.

Project locations have not yet been checked against current ward boundaries. No ward impact is inferred from a city-centre address.

The air-quality plan contains historical measurements and forecasts. No October 2026 pollution reading or causal benefit is inferred; the management-area boundary is not treated as a ward boundary.