UK Cities Outlook 2024

Cities Outlook
2024
About Centre for Cities
The UK’s economy is driven by the success of its largest cities and towns, which
generate opportunities and prosperity for people in all parts of the country.
Our mission is to help the UK’s largest cities and towns realise their economic
potential.
We produce rigorous, data-driven research and policy ideas to help cities, large
towns and Government address the challenges and opportunities they face – from
boosting productivity and wages to preparing for the changing world of work.
We also work closely with urban leaders, Whitehall and business to ensure our work
is relevant, accessible and of practical use to cities, large towns and policy makers.
For more information, please visit www.centreforcities.org/about
Partnerships
Centre for Cities is always keen to work in partnership with like-minded organisations
who share our commitment to helping cities to thrive, and supporting policy makers
to achieve that aim.
As a registered charity (no. 1119841) we rely on external support to deliver our

programme of quality research and events.
To find out more please visit: www.centreforcities.org/about/partnerships

1.Cities are important to the national 3. Large cities underperform
economy Productivity New economy firms
72%
62% 62% 63%

60%
54%
40%
9%
Land Greenhouse Population High-skilled New Business GVA Private

gas emissions residents economy starts KIBS jobs
firms
2. Economic performance varies across the country

There are big differences in productivity Wages are also affected Skills is a major determinant High housing costs threaten the success of cities
GVA per hour, 2021 (£) Average weekly workplace earnings by region, 2023 (£) Working-age population with a high-level qualification (RFQ4 Housing affordability ratio, 2023
or above), 2022 (%)
25.8 - 30.1 500 - 599.9 20 - 39.99 0 - 7.4
30.2 - 34.7 600 - 699.9 40 - 49.99 7.5 - 9.9
34.8 - 62.9 700 - 874.8 50 - 73.2 10 - 15.5
Sources: ONS, The Data City, Department of Energy Security and Net Zero
4. What needs to change
Stick with the levelling up agenda and its focus

on improving the performance of the largest
cities outside London. This focus needs to be
backed with a multi-decade programme of policies,
as has been seen in Germany. Strategies without
action don’t bring about change.
Introduce the next phase of devolution, building

on the Trailblazer devolution deals by passing fiscal
powers to London, Greater Manchester and the West
Midlands, to give places a greater ability to deal with
economic underperformance and change, while
addressing funding challenges faced by local
government.
Reform the planning system, building on steps

taken in the 2023 Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
Move planning to a rules-based approach, replacing
Sc an the existing discretionary, case-by-case system that
fo r has produced a backlog of 4.3 million homes.
a
ll
cit
y dat
www.
Contents
00
Testimonials IIII
01
The clash of politics and economics
in a general election year 03
02
How places have fared since 2010 09
03
City Monitor 33
Centre for Cities Centre for Cities
00
Cities Outlook
2024
Testimonials
I Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 II

Testimonials We know devolution is working and more powers and

funding should be handed down from Westminster to
local leaders who know their areas best.
Cities Outlook 2024 brings home the urgency of the

need for growth in the UK, while making a compelling
case for why devolution is the way forward in
achieving that.
Centre for Cities plays an important role in helping
local leaders understand and address the challenges It is only by expanding devolution and the financial
facing cities and towns. The data and insights in this and policy making powers for our regions, that
year’s report show the economic disparity between local leaders will be able to respond effectively to
the North and South is widening, not closing. Despite tackle the issues facing their areas, meaning better
over a decade of focus on the Northern Powerhouse outcomes for everyone.”
and Levelling Up, the Greater South East has a higher
proportion of the UK's jobs than it had in 2010.
This is having a significant impact on the people of Mayor Tracy Brabin
Greater Manchester and beyond. Mayor of West Yorkshire
We welcome the report’s call for further progress

on devolution. Greater Manchester’s trailblazer deal
is providing more local control over areas like skills,
transport and housing, strengthening our ability to
improve the lives of people who live and work here. Cities Outlook continues to be an indispensable tool
But there is more to be done. for urban leaders, offering valuable insights that will
help to unlock our cities' potential right across the
At the start of what promises to be a pivotal year, UK.
Cities Outlook 2024 clearly sets out what the next
government – of any colour – needs to consider to I rely hugely on reading about other cities and their
renew the levelling up agenda and give cities and performance to be able to make progress here
towns the tools we need to unlock the growth we in Bradford. Learning from others is vital. The
know we are capable of. comprehensive data and analysis set out in the
report not only allows individual cities to assess their
performance in relation to others but also enables
Mayor Andy Burnham them to identify and capitalise on their unique
Mayor of Greater Manchester strengths. It should be a cornerstone for informed
decision-making at all levels of government – and it’s
particularly vital during an election year
Cllr Susan Hinchliffe

Leader, City of Bradford Council
III Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 IV

Cities Outlook 2024 provides another vital overview Tackling the productivity challenge will be one of
of the contribution that cities of all sizes make to the big asks of the next government – and it’s an
driving economic growth across the UK – providing opportunity that we simply cannot afford to miss.
tens of millions of people with jobs and homes. For example, we know that if Liverpool’s productivity
increased to the national average, it would generate
And the potential further contribution of cities is an additional £4.5bn for our area.
immense: Core Cities UK and the RSA have found
that increasing the productivity of UK cities to the If we are serious about getting our economy firing
levels of their European peers would add an extra on all cylinders, then we need to see more action at
£100 billion a year to our national economy. a national level to break down regional imbalances.
As Cities Outlook 2024 shows, devolution is already
As this report from Centre for Cities shows, UK plc proving itself to be a catalyst for growth. The more
has stagnated since 2010. My home city of Bristol is powers we hand to local leaders, who understand
the only Core City ahead of the national average for the needs and priorities of their areas better than
productivity. We are one of very few places where anyone else, the faster we can start to address
gross disposable household income per head is up, the barriers that are holding our regions back from
however negligibly, since 2010, compared to what fulfilling their true potential.
would have been if 1998-2010 growth rates had been
sustained.
Mayor Steve Rotheram
The solution is simple. Cities must be empowered Mayor of Liverpool City Region
to help unlock and unleash the full potential of our
country.
I have no doubt that this data from Centre for Cities

will contribute significantly to the broader policy
debate surrounding the future of the UK.
Mayor Marvin Rees

Mayor of Bristol
V Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 VI

01
Cities Outlook
2024
The clash of politics and
economics in a general
election year
1 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 2

inroads into the longstanding challenges that shape the UK’s economic geography.
The clash of politics and Inevitably, the politics of an election will drag politicians in directions that distort these choices
and decisions. There are three areas where this is likely to be a problem in the coming months
economics in a general
– the differing role of cities and towns in the national economy, planning reform and the
stuttering of London.
election year The differing roles of cities and towns

This has already become apparent in the very unhelpful cities versus towns debate, which
politicians had seemingly moved on from. But it reared its head once again at Conservative
Party Conference in October, where Rishi Sunak claimed the economy had been too focused
Cities Outlook 2024 provides a comprehensive overview of urban Britain on cities and his plan would be to shift the economic geography away from them towards
towns.1
in what is set to be the year of a general election. It shows that serious
choices and decisions need to be taken around domestic economic Given ongoing narratives around the Red Wall, the political draw of this approach for both
policy if the next government is to make inroads into the longstanding parties is obvious. There are, however, both economic and political reasons why this isn’t a
smart move.
challenges that shape the geography of the UK economy.
There’s no doubt that several towns outside the Greater South East are struggling, but the
The last election was one where domestic economic policy, and particularly levelling up, was reasons for this are often found in their nearby cities. Big cities should be leading the regional
central to the debate. But for all the heat that surrounded it, the actual policy action, while not and national economy, as is the case with comparable cities on the continent, creating wealth
absent, has fallen short of what was promised. and opportunities for people who live in and next to them.2 The fact that they don’t is bad
news for neighbouring towns and villages. While a region’s prosperity is disproportionately
There are mitigating factors. Covid, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the surge in inflation have generated in these large centres of production, it is spread much wider. Centre for Cities
all been crises demanding immediate attention, and any government would have struggled. showed in September how ‘trickle out’ is a thing – large cities provide prosperity for the
But despite this, it should still be possible for a government to show more progress on its towns and villages around them. But because they aren’t generating as much prosperity as
flagship domestic policy than it has, come the end of a parliament. they should be, there is less for residents in these towns and villages than there should be.3
Politicians of all stripes need to recognise that while cities won’t provide all the answers, it is
Some progress has been made. The Government published the Levelling Up White Paper in hard to see a route to prosperity for struggling towns that doesn’t involve an improvement in
early 2022 and allocated pots of funding via competitive bidding. And it has made progress the performance of their larger neighbours. The affluent towns and villages around London and
on devolution, both through its extension to areas such as Hull and East Riding and the East Bristol are testament to this.
Midlands, and by deepening it with trailblazer deals for Greater Manchester and the West
Midlands. This is now well understood, which made the Prime Minister’s comments more jarring. The
Government is to be applauded for making the choice of focusing on the underperformance
But in terms of making progress towards its ambitious (and laudable) 12 targets by 2030, set of large cities in the Levelling Up White Paper, something influenced by the work of Centre
out in the White Paper, it has left a lot of work to be done for whoever wins the next election. for Cities.4 If we are to help people and places across the country, whoever leads the next
government will need to continue with this framework.
In the context of a general election this lack of progress will create a challenge for the
Conservatives to demonstrate to voters in the Red Wall how they are better off five years on. It
will also require Labour to show the same voters how its approach would be better.
1 Sunak’s Harold Wilson Act is a recipe for economic disaster, Ben Ramanauskas, Evening Standard, 12 October 2023
2 Swinney P (2021), So you want to level up? London: Centre for Cities
To govern effectively is to choose. For the next government there will be serious choices and 3 Swinney P (2023), Does ‘trickle out’ work? How cities help their surrounding towns, London: Centre for Cities
decisions to make for domestic economic policy, as in other areas of policy, if it is to make 4 Work by Centre for Cities was cited 22 times in the Levelling Up White Paper

Planning reform
Box 1: Defining cities
This is an area where, for a long time, economics and politics have disagreed. The good news
is that both parties know that changes need to be made. And the Government has made some Centre for Cities research focuses on the UK’s 63 largest cities and towns,
progress with the changes set out in last year’s Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. defined as primary urban areas (PUAs). Unless otherwise stated, Centre for Cities
uses data for PUAs in its analysis – a measure of the ‘built-up’ area of a large
The reason for this consensus is the size of the problem. Centre for Cities showed in February city or town, rather than individual local authority areas. You can find the full
how the existing planning system, with its roots in the 1947 Town and Country Planning definitions and a methodological note at www.centreforcities.org/puas.
Act, has had a large role to play in the missing 4.3 million homes that the UK has built up,
compared with other European countries since the end of the Second World War.5
The politics here though have long been the barrier to change, and history reminds us that
rhetoric isn’t always followed with action, especially in this policy area. How serious either
party is will be revealed by the change they bring about after they are elected rather than the
words they choose to use in the run up to the election.
London and levelling up

A third political challenge will be putting policies in place that deal with London’s stuttering
economy alongside the levelling up agenda. Policy support for the Capital has become more
difficult in recent years because of its much higher levels of prosperity than other parts of the
country and the wrongly held perception that it has been favoured by successive governments
for investment and support. But London’s productivity slowdown since 2008 is a big factor
in the wider national malaise, as Centre for Cities showed back in March.6 To get the UK
economy firing again the next government must overcome the reluctance to support London.
This isn’t just something that has been seen in the Capital – the poor performance of the
national economy since the financial crash has been felt across the country. The next chapter
of the 17th edition of Cities Outlook sets this out in detail.
This underwhelming growth has been a hallmark of the economies of almost every UK city
or large town. The chapter highlights the scale of the challenge for the next inhabitant of 10
Downing Street to overcome if the UK is to be markedly more prosperous by the end of the
decade.
5 Breach A and Watling S (2023), The housebuilding crisis: The UK’s 4 million missing homes, London: Centre for Cities
6 Rodrigues G and Bridgett S (2023), Capital losses: The role of London in the UK’s productivity puzzle, London: Centre for
Cities

02
Cities Outlook
2024
How places have fared
since 2010

How places have fared

Box 2: Selection of time periods
The time periods selected reflect political cycles with Labour in power between
1998 and 2010 (most of the data used in this section was not produced for 1997)
since 2010 and the Conservative-led government since 2010. It also broadly covers the UK’s
economic cycle – in 2010 the economy was recovering from the global financial
crisis, while in 2021/22 it was bouncing back from the Covid-related recession.
The 1998-2010 period is used as a broad benchmark to put performance since
2010 into context.
The UK’s economic stagnation has been felt in every part of the country.
Addressing this presents a huge challenge for the next occupant of 10 The starting point: large differences in disposable incomes
Downing Street. across the country
The requirement for economic growth will be a key part of the debate in the run up to the next The coalition government came to power in 2010 with the aim of rebalancing the economy,
general election. While the economy is usually central in any election campaign, the UK’s poor both spatially and sectorally. The need to do this spatially was clear – as Figure 1 shows,
performance since the global financial crisis makes the requirement for growth a particularly disposable incomes in cities in the Greater South East in particular were much higher than
pressing one.7 And so it is no surprise that Keir Starmer has said that raising productivity they were further north. Disposable incomes in London were close to double what they were
growth will be Labour’s ‘obsession’,8 while Jeremy Hunt made growth the core theme of the in Blackburn and Hull, for example. And all large cities lagged behind the national average, a
last Autumn Statement. particular issue given the number of people who lived in them.
Cities are a key part of the UK economy – the 63 largest cities and towns are centres of
production, accounting for nine per cent of land but 63 per cent of output and 72 per cent of
high-skilled jobs. So their performance has been, and will be, an important factor in how well
the UK economy fares through the rest of the 2020s and beyond.
This chapter looks at the economic performance of cities since 2010, showing how they
have fared and what this means for the party that forms the next government. It does this by
looking at job creation, productivity, income and housing affordability. Where data is available,
it contrasts this performance to the 1998 to 2010 period to put this performance in context
(see Box 2).
7 Resolution Foundation and Centre for Economic Performance (2023), Ending Stagnation, A New Economic Strategy for
Britain, London: Resolution Foundation
8 Starmer’s full economy speech: “Labour will offer a new deal for the public”, LabourList, 4 December 2023

Figure 1: Gross disposable household income (GDHI) per head, 2010 (2022 prices) Most cities have experienced a jobs boom since 2010
In 2010 the requirement to create jobs was clear. As the UK economy was recovering from the
GDHI per head in
UK cities, 2010
global financial crisis, the unemployment rate was at its highest point since the mid-1990s.
Few would have predicted what was about to happen. The economy has gone through a jobs
15,000 - 16,999 miracle since 2010, and most cities and large towns have benefited. By 2022, there were 4.6
17,000 - 18,999 million extra jobs in the UK than there were in 2010, considerably more than the 2.5 million
19,000 - 20,999 created between 1998 and 2010.
21,000 - 29,000
All but two of Britain’s 62 largest cities and towns had more jobs too. London led in relative
terms. Its total number of jobs grew by almost 30 per cent, adding a further 1.4 million
positions to the Capital’s economy – the equivalent of adding the whole of Wales to the UK
jobs market. It was joined by Luton, Reading, Cambridge and Milton Keynes in the top five.
And half of cities had jobs growth that was higher than the national average between 1998
and 2010. In contrast, Aberdeen and Worthing were the only two places that had fewer jobs
– the fall of around 9 per cent in Aberdeen being in stark contrast to most other parts of the
country.
While there is a reasonable geographic spread of the top performers, the sheer scale of
London’s performance means that the total share of British jobs has continued to cluster in
the Greater South East. In 2010, 38.8 per cent of all roles were located there; by 2022 it had
risen to 40.8 per cent.9 And for every one job created elsewhere in Britain, 1.2 were generated
in the Greater South East. While rebalancing and levelling up have been themes in policy since
2010, the divides between south and north have continued to widen.
Source: ONS
Note: Data has been adjusted to 2022 prices using the consumer price index
9 The Greater South East’s share of gross value added over that time increased from 45.9 per cent to 47.5 per cent

Figure 2: Most cities and large towns have seen strong jobs growth since 2010 Figure 3: Productivity growth was very low across most cities and large towns
Net new job creation in British cities and large towns, 2010 - 2022 Real output per hour growth across cities and large towns, 2010 - 2021
LonLudon
ton 30.5
30.4 Cities in the Greater South East Cities in the Greater South East
Aldersh ot 3.0 2.9
LonLudon
ton 29.230.3 Cities elsewhere in Britain
Slou g h 2.7 2.7 Cities elsewhere in Britain
R ea din g 27.6
28.2 Norw ich 2.3 2.3
Milton
Ca mKeybridg n ese 24.5
25.0 R ea din g 2.2 2.2
Milton
Ma n ch Key ester
n es 24.2
24.2 W orth in g 1.9 1.9
Liv erpool 23.5
24.1 BCra
rig w
h ton
ley 1.71.5
Ma
Canmch bridg
ester e 23.0
23.0 BCra
rig w
h ton
ley 1.5 1.5
B rig
Leeds
h ton 21.922.9 Hu ddersfield 1.4 1.3
B rig
Leeds
h ton 21.322.8 B elfa st 1.3 1.3
B la ckbu rn 20.6 22.7 New ca stle 1.3 1.3
W aBrrin
a rngsley
ton 20.121.6 W a rrin g ton 1.1 1.1
B aBrnristol
sley 19.7
20.6 D onCaca rdiff
ster 1.0 1.0
W a rrinB ristol
g ton 18.9
19.8 D onCaca rdiff
ster 1.0 0.9
E dinT bu
elford
rg h 17.919.5 Ca m bridg e 0.8 0.8
WBaakefield
sildon 17.5 19.4 New
Preston
port 0.8 0.8
Peterborou
Edin bu rgg h 17.1 19.4 New
Preston
port 0.8 0.8
D on ca ster 16.818.1 Portsm ou th 0.7 0.7
W
Ma a kefield
n sfield 16.617.6 Sw a n sea 0.7 0.7
MaB ansildon
sfield 15.817.4 W ig a n 0.7 0.7
TDelford
erby 15.717.0 G la sg ow 0.7 0.6
Peterborou
Cov en try gh 15.4
15.8 Ch a th a m 0.7 0.6
Ca
D erby
rdiff 15.0
15.5 W a kefield 0.7 0.6
Cov O en
x ford
try 15.5
14.9 North a m pton 0.6 0.6
O
Cax ford
rdiff 14.015.5 Sh eeffield
ff i eld 0.6 0.5
North Leicester
a m pton 13.5 15.3 Stoke 0.6 0.5
North Leicester
a m pton 13.414.8 Su n derla n d 0.5 0.5
Ch a th a m 13.3
14.5 B irm in g h a m 0.5 0.5
B irm in g h a m 12.9
14.1 Leicester 0.5 0.4
Aldersh ot 12.013.3 Nottin g h a m 0.4 0.4
G la sg ow 11.0
12.0 T elford 0.4 0.4
PlyB m
u rnouley
th 10.312.0 Ma n ch ester 0.4 0.4
B u rnHu leyll 10.0
10.6 BBlara
ckbu
dford rn 0.4 0.3
Ply mStoke
ou th 9.510.5 BBlara
ckbu
dford rn 0.4 0.3
Stoke
Hu ll 8.49.4 B u rn ley 0.3 0.3
B ou rnShem effield
ou th 8.29.3 BEirken
din buh earg d
h 0.3 0.3
New Ipsw
ca stle
ich 8.1
8.8 BEirken
din buh earg d
h 0.3 0.3
B ouNew
rn em caou stle
th 7.8
8.3 Lon
E x eter
don 0.3 0.3
SwIpsw
a n sea
ich 8.0
7.4 Lon
E x eter
don 0.3 0.3
Sh effYork
i e ld 6.57.8 Middlesbrou g h 0.3 0.2
B raWdford
ig a n 6.57.6 B ristol 0.3 0.2
Hu ddersfield
B ra dford 6.27.5 B ou rn em ou th 0.2 0.2
B la ckpool
W ig a n 6.27.3 Milton Key n es 0.2 0.2
Sou th en d 5.76.9 Aberdeen 0.1 0.1
Nottin
B la ckpool
gham 5.56.8
CovD uen
n de trye 0.1 0.0
Hu
Nottin
ddersfield
gham 5.26.2
Cov
D uen
n deetry 0.1 0.0
Ipsw ich 0.0 -0.1
Sou thSw am a npton
sea 5.26.0
Sw Lu ton
in don 0.0-0.1
Cra w York
ley 4.95.5
SwOin don
x ford -0.1-0.2
B irken
Crahwea le d
y 4.65.5
Ma O x ford
n sfield -0.1-0.2
Sou th a mhpton
B irken ea d 4.9
4.6
Ma nLu sfield
ton -0.2-0.2
Preston 4.3
4.8
Sou th en d -0.2 -0.2
New
Sw inport
don 4.1
4.7
B la ckpool -0.2-0.3
Norwport
New ich 4.6
4.1
Leeds
UK average
UK
-0.2 -0.3
UK average 1998-2010 | 1.5
UK average 1998-2010 | 1.5

Sw
Norw in don
ich 3.64.5
G lou cester -0.3-0.3
average 1998-2010
Slou g h 3.6
4.1
B a sildon -0.4 -0.4
D u n dee 3.3
3.5
B a rn sley -0.4 -0.4
G louEx eter
cester 2.6
3.1
Peterborou g h -0.5-0.5
1998-2010 || 8.5
G louEcester
x eter 2.3
2.5
Ply m ou th -0.5-0.6
Middlesbrou
Portsm ougth h 0.82.1
Hu ll -0.6-0.7
Portsm ougth
Middlesbrou h 1.3
0.7
York -0.8-0.8
Su n derla n d 0.1
0.8 Liv erpool -0.8-0.8
W orth in g -1.1
-1.2 Sou th a m pton -0.8-0.9
8.5
Aberdeen -9.1
-8.3 D erby -1.9-1.9
-10 -5 00 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 2525 3030 -2.0-2.0-1.5 -1.5-1.0 -1.0-0.5 -0.50.0 0.00.5 0.51.0 1.01.5 1.52.0 2.02.5 2.53.0 3.0
Source: ONS
Source: ONS
Note: Data isn’t available for Belfast. To account for the break in the data in 2015 a scaling factor has been applied to the 2010
data to make it comparable with 2022 data. This factor is the ratio of the 2015 data produced by the old and new methodology. Note: Data has been deflated using the ONS’ regional GVA deflators

But productivity growth has been weak across the country 2010, an increase of £3,300 (in 2022 prices).
Things look decidedly less positive from a growth perspective when looking at productivity. Despite its poor productivity growth, London was the only city that saw its disposable income
At the national level, it increased by an annual average of 0.6 per cent in real terms between per head rise faster than the national increase between 1998 and 2010. On average, incomes
2010 and 2021, much more sluggish than the average annual growth of 1.5 per cent between of Londoners were almost £4,300 higher than in 2010 (in 2022 prices), and Box 3 discusses
1998 and 2010. what drove this. It was followed by Brighton, Worthing and Aldershot. Meanwhile, Burnley and
Aberdeen had lower incomes than in 2010 and, on average, people in Glasgow were just £34
And this was seen across most of the country. Comparing city performance post-2010 to better off (see Figure 5). And this is before housing costs are accounted for, which as Box 4
the national average between 1998 and 2010 underlines how poorly almost everywhere has shows worsened in most places.
performed. Just five cities had productivity growth rates that were higher than the national
average between 1998 and 2010, all of which were in the Greater South East (see Figure 3). Once again, the scale of London combined with its performance had an impact on how
More alarmingly, 18 had become less productive according to ONS figures over the period, incomes grew in different parts for the country. For every £1 increase per head outside of the
with Derby seeing the largest fall in output per hour of any city or large town. Greater South East13 between 2010 and 2022, they rose by £2.36 within the area.
Despite the seven fastest-growing cities all being in the Greater South East, there was little
difference in productivity growth between this part of the country and the rest of the UK.
This is because, conversely to the story for jobs, London’s productivity slowdown more than Box 3: Components of London’s disposable income growth
countered the growth of places like Slough and Brighton. The Capital led UK productivity
growth before the financial crisis,10 but it has close to flatlined since, increasing by an average London still saw the largest absolute growth in per capita disposable income
of just 0.3 per cent per year between 2010 and 2021. This ranked it 38th out of 63 cities and despite its sharp productivity slowdown. Looking at the components of disposable
was a key cause of the wider UK slowdown seen over the period. income shows that this was mainly made up from increasing income from
employment, rather than from income from housing or other assets, for example.
This combination of strong job growth but poor productivity growth suggests that many of And salary data shows that this wasn’t the result of large wage gains – the growth
the roles created were in lower productivity activities. At a national level, around two-thirds was low for all wage earners. It is the rapid increase in jobs, with more people in
were taken by households in the bottom half of the income distribution between 2009/10 employment (the Capital had an employment rate of 76 in 2022, up from 68 per
and 2019/20,11 and while the data isn’t available at the sub-national level, the analysis above cent in 2010).
suggests this played out across most cities. The UK hasn’t struggled to create jobs, which is
very welcome. It does, however, appear to have struggled to generate ‘good jobs,’ to use a
phrase used by both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer.12
Poor productivity improvements have squeezed disposable

income growth
The result of this poor productivity growth meant that while more people were employed, this
did not translate into strong income growth. At the national level, gross disposable household
income grew in real terms by 0.7 per cent on an annual average basis, or £1,800 over the
period. This compared with a yearly average growth rate of 1.4 per cent between 1998 and
10 Rodrigues G and Bridgett S (2023), Capital Losses: The role of London in the UK’s productivity puzzle, London: Centre for
Cities
11 Resolution Foundation and Centre for Economic Performance (2023), Ending Stagnation, A New Economic Strategy for
Britain, London: Resolution Foundation
12 See for example ‘Keir Starmer speech unveiling Labour’s mission to cut bills, create jobs and provide energy security for
Britain’, 19 June 2023 and ‘Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work’, Hansard 12 May 2021 13 Including Northern Ireland

Figure 5: Since 2010, only London saw disposable income growth outstrip that
Box 4: Housing has also become less affordable in most cities seen at the national level between 1998 and 2010
This disposable income growth slowdown has come at a time when housing
affordability – already an issue in 2010 – has gotten worse. Housing has become Real change in gross domestic household income per head, 2010 - 2021 (2022 prices)
less affordable in almost every city (see Figure 4). And cities in the Greater South
East, where the affordability challenge was already most acute, have tended to Lon don 4,325 Cities in the Greater South East
see the greatest increases – eight of the 10 cities with the largest deterioration B rig h ton
W orth in g
2,843
2,772
Cities elsewhere in Britain
were in this part of the country (with London having the biggest change). Exeter Aldersh ot
B ristol
2,339
2,281
and Bristol also made the top 10. Assuming that this has meant that rents have York
Sou th en d
2,175
2,168
also increased means that the disposable incomes of renters in particular will B a rn sley 2,133
North a m pton 2,124
have been squeezed still further. O x ford
W a rrin g ton
2,096
1,928
Portsm ou th 1,772
Edin bu rg h 1,661
Just five cities have seen an improvement. All three cities in the North East – Nottin g h a m
R ea din g
1,628
1,586
Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Sunderland - along with Blackpool and Aberdeen, Lu ton
Hu ddersfield
1,575
1,558
saw housing become slightly more affordable. Slou g h
D erby
1,555
1,505
Ma n sfield 1,479
Ch a th a m 1,419
Figure 4: Cities in the Greater South East have tended to see housing Preston
B ou rn em ou th
1,417
1,417
affordability deteriorate the most Ma n ch ester
D on ca ster
1,345
1,316
Ipsw ich 1,291
Leeds 1,275
Change in housing affordability, 2010 - 2022 Stoke

Sh effield
1,250
1,229
New ca stle 1,209
Leicester 1,201
Liv erpool 1,182
Cities in the Greater South East T elford 1,168
Cities elsewhere in Britain Cov en try 1,161
Sw a n sea 1,143
B a sildon 1,141
Change in housing affordability, 2010 - 2022
6 Sou th a m pton 1,135

E x eter 1,087
Cambridge Ca rdiff 1,076
London New port 1,062
5
W a kefield 1,055
Brighton Oxford B irm in g h a m 1,052
4 B la ckbu rn 1,016
Hu ll 1,015
D u n dee 988
3 B elfa st 971
Su n derla n d 914
G lou cester 900
2 Bournemouth Middlesbrou g h 876
B la ckpool 659
Milton Key n es 658
Hull B ra dford 641
1
UK a v era g e 1998-2010 | 3,300

Sw in don 529
Burnley Ply m ou th 528
0 B irken h ea d 512
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 W ig a n 437
Cra w ley 420
-1 Middlesbrough Aberdeen Ca m bridg e 399
Peterborou g h 395
Norw ich 294
-2 G la sg ow 34
B u rn ley -346
Housing affordability, 2010 Aberdeen -1,581
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Source: ONS; Land Registry; Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics
Source: ONS
Note: resident wages are taken from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings in this chapter because data
from Pay as You Earn tax records, as is used in the Data Monitor section, begins in 2014.
Note: Data has been deflated using the consumer price index
Data isn’t available for Belfast.

These combined trends have impacted on the level and nature of Figure 6: Absolute child poverty has decreased in the majority of cities, particularly
poverty in the UK in Wales and some parts of the Greater South East, but many Midlands cities have
seen increases
Despite their disproportionate benefit from the job creation that has happened since 2010,
those at the bottom end of the income distribution appear to have been most affected by
this poor disposable income growth. Using children in poverty as a proxy shows that relative Proportion of children living in absolute poverty, percentage point change, 2014 - 2021
poverty has become a bigger problem since 2014 (the earliest the data is available).
Nottin g h a m 7.1 Cities in the Greater South East
D erby 6.8 Cities elsewhere in Britain
The good news is that absolute child poverty has decreased slightly overall between 2014 and Leicester 6.3
Ma n sfield 5.8
2021. This measure is based on a fixed baseline of 2010 median income, so this slight decline Stoke 4.1
is consistent with the rise in incomes, however sluggish, over this period. Middlesbrou g h 3.9
T elford 3.6
North a m pton 3.5
Cov en try 3.5
But this wasn’t the case in many cities. While more than half saw declining absolute child G la sg ow 3.4
Aberdeen 3.0
poverty rates, those in the Midlands (led by Nottingham, Derby and Leicester) saw the largest Cra w ley 2.5
New ca stle 2.5
increases (see Figure 6). In all Scottish cities absolute child poverty rates rose, while all Welsh D u n dee 2.4
Edin bu rg h 1.7
cities saw significant decreases. Su n derla n d 1.4
Portsm ou th 1.3
Slou g h 0.8
Sou th a m pton 0.5
In contrast, the proportion of children in relative poverty has risen in every UK city except Aldersh ot 0.4
O x ford 0.3
Belfast (see Figure 7). Relative poverty is measured as having less than 60 per cent of R ea din g 0.2
Ch a th a m 0.2
median income in the same year. This indicates that while incomes in most cities have grown B rig h ton -0.1
Liv erpool -0.7
among the poorest households, it has been at a slower rate than average earners, meaning Milton Key n es -0.7
B irken h ea d -0.7
their relative position has worsened. As a consequence, in 2021 there were six UK cities, all Leeds -0.8
B la ckpool -0.8
of which are in the Midlands and the North of England (Bradford, Blackburn, Birmingham, B ristol -0.9
B u rn ley -0.9
Burnley, Derby and Leicester) where over a third of children were in households in relative W orth in g -0.9
Ipsw ich -0.9
poverty. There were none in 2014. Lon don -1.0
B ou rn em ou th -1.1
W a rrin g ton -1.4
Sh effield -1.4
Alongside this, there has been a change in the nature of poverty – in-work poverty has been Ma n ch ester -1.6
Preston -1.7
increasing in almost all areas of the UK. Figure 8 shows that the share of children living in G lou cester -1.8
Hu ddersfield -1.9
relative poverty who are from working families has risen in all cities except those in the East E x eter -1.9
Sw in don -2.0
of England. The upshot is that while in-work poverty was primarily a Greater South East W ig a n -2.1
Ca m bridg e -2.3
phenomenon in 2014, it is increasingly spreading across the rest of the country. In 2014, the York -2.3
B ra dford -2.3
Greater South East accounted for 17 of the 20 cities with the highest share of children in Norw ich -2.5
Ply m ou th -2.6
relative poverty. In 2021, it was 13 of the top 20 (noting the top 11 were all still in the Greater W a kefield -3.0
B a rn sley -3.0
South East). Sou th en d -3.0
D on ca ster -3.1
Lu ton -3.6
Ca rdiff -3.7
Sw a n sea -3.8
B la ckbu rn -4.0
B a sildon -4.2
Hu ll -4.8
Peterborou g h -5.0
New port -5.7
B elfa st -6.5
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Source: ONS, CiLiF (DWP Stat Xplore)

Figure 7: In contrast to absolute poverty, share of children in relative poverty has Figure 8: An increasing share of child poverty is seen among in-work households in
increased in all cities except Belfast all cities besides those in the East of England
Proportion of children living in relative poverty, percentage point change, 2014 - 2021 Percentage point change in the share of children in relative poverty from working households,
2014 - 2021
Nottin g h a m 12.7 Cities in the Greater South East
D erby 12.1 Cities elsewhere in Britain
Leicester 11.7 Sw a n sea 25.1 Cities in the Greater South East
Ma n sfield 11.3 New port 23.3 Cities elsewhere in Britain
Middlesbrou g h 10.3 Ca rdiff 21.1
B irm in g h a m 10.2 Portsm ou th 13.1
Stoke 9.9 O x ford 12.9
T elford 9.3 Sou th a m pton 12.5
Cra w ley 8.9 Ch a th a m 12.3
G la sg ow 8.4 Aldersh ot 12.1
Cov en try 8.4 Ply m ou th 11.1
New ca stle 8.2 Middlesbrou g h 10.9
B u rn ley 8.1 New ca stle 10.8
D u n dee 8.1 R ea din g 10.5
Liv erpool 8.0 Su n derla n d 10.2
Su n derla n d 8.0 B rig h ton 10.2
Portsm ou th 7.6 W orth in g 9.9
Slou g h 7.5 Slou g h 9.7
North a m pton 7.0
Hu ll 8.9
B la ckpool 7.0
Lon don 8.8
Sou th a m pton 6.9
Milton Key n es 8.7
Aberdeen 6.6
Cra w ley 8.6
B la ckbu rn 6.3
G lou cester 8.5
Ma n ch ester 6.2
E x eter 7.6
Ch a th a m 5.8
Sw in don 7.3
Ipsw ich 5.6
Nottin g h a m 7.1
B irken h ea d 5.6
Liv erpool 6.8
O x ford 5.5
Ma n sfield 6.8
B ra dford 5.4
B ristol 6.1
Milton Key n es 4.7
W a rrin g ton 6.0
Leeds 4.6
Stoke 5.8
Hu ddersfield 4.5
Leicester 5.8
Edin bu rg h 4.5
W ig a n 5.1
Sh eff i e ld 4.4
T elford 5.0
W orth in g 4.3
Preston 4.2 D erby 4.7
B a rn sley 4.7
B rig h ton 4.2
W ig a n 4.2 B irken h ea d 4.7
Aldersh ot 4.2 B ou rn em ou th 4.3
R ea din g 4.0 North a m pton 4.2
Sw a n sea 3.9 Ma n ch ester 4.2
Lu ton 3.8 York 4.1

G lou cester 3.7 G la sg ow 4.0
Ca rdiff 3.6 B irm in g h a m 4.0
W a rrin g ton 3.5 D u n dee 3.9
D on ca ste r 3.4 B u rn ley 3.5
B a rn sley 3.2 Leeds 3.4
New port 3.1 B la ckpool 3.1
Hu ll 3.0 D on ca ster 3.0
B ristol 2.9 Preston 3.0
Norw ich 2.7 Cov en try 2.8
Ply m ou th 2.6 B la ckbu rn 2.3
W a kefield 2.4 W a kefield 1.9
Lon don 2.3 Aberdeen 1.7
B ou rn em ou th 2.2 Sh effield 1.3
E x eter 2.2 Hu ddersfield 1.3
Peterborou g h 1.9 B ra dford 0.3
Sw in don 1.7 Edin bu rg h 0.3
York 0.9 Lu ton -0.5
Ca m bridg e 0.9 B a sildon -2.0
Sou th en d 0.6 Peterborou g h -4.3
B a sildon -0.1 Norw ich -4.4
B elfa st -1.9 Sou th en d -5.6
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ca m bridg e -5.8
Ipsw ich -6.1
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Source: ONS, CiLiF (DWP Stat Xplore)
Source: CiLiF (DWP Stat Xplore)
Note: Does not include Belfast

Taken together, these trends imply the following: Figure 9: On average people in most cities and large towns have less money in their
pockets than if disposable incomes had grown at pre-2010 rates
• Strong jobs growth has lifted many households out of absolute poverty between 2014
Cumulative difference in gross disposable household income per
and 2021, although this is not the case in many cities in the Midlands and the North. head if the city economy grew at 1998-2010 rates (£, 2022 prices)
• In contrast, increases in relative child poverty suggest low-income households have still Aberdeen -45,240 Luton -7,660
fared worse compared with average-earning households over the period. Burnley -28,090 Stoke -7,360
Glasgow -23,500 Southampton -7,070
Combining this with the evidence of increasing in-work poverty suggests that job growth Milton Keynes -21,610 Newcastle -6,860
without productivity growth has merely shifted poor households into work, rather than Cambridge -21,340 Brighton -6,660
alleviating poverty altogether. Dundee -17,730 Sheffield -6,380
Birkenhead -17,540 Reading -5,920
The result is that most places are worse off than if pre-2010 Ipswich -17,390 Doncaster -4,750
trends had continued Exeter -16,990 Barnsley -3,880 Cumulative difference

Plymouth -16,340 Worthing -3,170 in GDHI to1998-2010
While almost all places are better off than they were in 2010 (with Aberdeen being a clear Edinburgh -16,030 Oxford -3,060 growth (£)
exception), the poor performance in terms of productivity and income raises the question Basildon -15,880 Nottingham -3,000
2,200 - 0
of how much better off places would have been if they had kept growing at the pace seen Liverpool -15,720 Birmingham -2,680
0 - -10,000
between 1998 and 2010. Comparing income growth since 2010 to the rates between 1998 Chatham -14,380 Crawley -2,680
-10,000 - -20,000
and 2010 for every city and large town gives an indication of this. Norwich -14,190 Huddersfield -2,650
-20,000 - -30,000
Wakefield -14,030 Bradford -1,550
-30,000 - -50,000
At the national level, on average people were cumulatively £10,200 worse off than they would London -13,590 Bristol 50
Mansfield -13,490 Aldershot 190
otherwise have been if growth had continued at pre-2010 rates.
Middlesbrough -13,200 Slough 720
Cardiff -13,080 York 900
At the city level, just seven places – Aldershot, Bristol, Derby, Northampton, Slough, Telford
Sunderland -12,730 Northampton 1,160
and York – had cumulative disposable incomes that were higher than what 1998 to 2010
Hull -12,260 Telford 1,770
growth rates would have achieved (see Figure 9). The reason for this, however, is not because
Newport -12,200 Derby 2,110
of an especially strong performance in any of these seven places since 2010, but because
Peterborough -11,990
their pre-2010 performance was underwhelming. Wigan -10,710
Blackpool -10,300
In every other city, people were worse off than if incomes had grown at the rate they did in Belfast -10,150
their area between 1998 and 2010 – people in 47 places were £5,000 worse off over the Preston -10,020
period, and in 27 of these places people were more than £10,000 worse off. Aberdeen had the Gloucester -9,630
biggest shortfall – if incomes had grown at pre-2010 rates, the city’s residents would have had Blackburn -9,470
an extra £45,000 in their pockets (equivalent to two extra years of disposable income). While Portsmouth -9,270
the city is a clear outlier (and is discussed in more detail in Box 5), the residents of Burnley, Swindon -9,210
Cambridge, Glasgow and Milton Keynes were all over £20,000 worse off than if their incomes Coventry -8,950
had grown at the rates they had pre-2010. Figure 10 shows how this played out in Aberdeen Bournemouth -8,560
and London since 2010. Warrington -8,440
Swansea -8,380
Southend -8,350
Leeds -8,220
Manchester -8,180
Leicester -7,980
Source: ONS; Centre for Cities’ calculations

Box 5: What has happened in Aberdeen? London
Real gross domestic household income (£)

Aberdeen was one of the most prosperous cities in the UK in 2010, having the 40,000 Real GDHI per head (2022 prices)
sixth highest disposable income and the fourteenth highest output per hour of all GDHI if it had increased at 1998-2010 trend
cities or large towns. But it has had a difficult period since. This shows both the
35,000
upsides and the downsides of being dependent on a particular industry.
Around 30 per cent of jobs in Aberdeen’s export base – the part of the economy 30,000
that trades with other areas of the UK and the world – are directly related to oil
and gas. And unlike the 2000s, this sector struggled in the 2010s. The result is
25,000
that the city has lost an estimated 9,000 jobs in areas related to oil and gas.
This is likely to have impacted the amount of money spent in the city – the number 20,000
of retail jobs fell by almost 30 per cent compared with 6 per cent nationally. And
house prices have been affected too – averages were 3.4 per cent higher in 2022
than in 2010 (compared with a national increase of 50 per cent) and were 15 per 15,000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
cent down on their 2014 peak.
Source: ONS ; Centre for Cities’ calculations
Figure 10: Disposable income growth lagged well behind the pre-2010 trend in
Aberdeen and London Policy churn has continued since 2010
There certainly hasn’t been a lack of action in terms of sub-national economic policy over the
Aberdeen past 14 years, with a plethora of initiatives introduced. There have been four main narratives to
the policy approach.
Real gross domestic household income (£)
40,000 Real GDHI per head (2022 prices)

GDHI if it had increased at 1998-2010 trend
• In 2010, the theme was ‘rebalancing the economy’ when the coalition government was
35,000
formed.
• This was replaced by the Northern Powerhouse initiative, led by George Osborne.
30,000 • This concept was largely abandoned by the May government, which focused more on
industrial strategies, including the creation of local industrial strategies.
25,000
• And with the Johnson government came levelling up, which has continued into the Sunak
government, even if it has had less focus.
20,000 Sitting under this have been a range of funds, deals, new structures, area-based policies and
task forces designed to improve growth across the country (see Figure 11). Much of it hasn’t
had a great deal of impact, and some has come in for sharp criticism.14
15,000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
14 National Audit Office (2022), Supporting local economic growth: Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities,
London: The Stationery Office

2024 Elections
2025
Source: Adapted from Pacione M (2009), Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, Third Edition, London: Routledge and National Audit Office (NAO) (2019) Local Enterprise Partnerships: An Update on Progress. London: NAO.
Trailblazer Devolution Deals
Community Renewal Fund
Levelling Up White Paper

Urban Partnership Fund
City Region Sustainable
Innovation Accelerators
Left Behind Towns Fund

Shared Prosperity Fund
Government Offices for
Transport Settlements
Training & Enterprise
Policy churn isn’t just a hallmark of the past 14 years though. Figure 11 also shows that the
Single Regeneration
Urban Regeneration
County Combined
Levelling Up Fund
Investment Zones
Agency / English
Regeneration Bill
Levelling Up and
City Challenge 1997 to 2010 period was similar in its approach, which in turn was seen in the decades before
Partnerships
the Regions
Authorities
it.
City Pride
Freeports
Councils
Budget
As the Levelling Up White Paper highlighted, this is a problem that limits any attempts to
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
2020
1990
seriously grapple with the geographically imbalanced nature of the UK economy.
Government Devolution Act

Urban Regeneration Grant
Regional Enterprise Grant
Introducing a degree of consistency and stability in sub-national economic policy will be an
Future High Streets Fund
Industrial Strategy White

High Streets Task Force
Mayoral Development
Housing Action Trusts
important prerequisite for the next government to be able to show progress when it goes to
Inner City Compacts
Mayoral Combined
Cities and Local

Action for Cities
the electorate. Two recent policy initiatives offer increased hope that this consistency can be
Corporations
Towns Fund
City Grants
Authorities
achieved.
Conservative government | 2010 - present

Paper
The first is the creation of combined authorities with directly elected mayors, introduced by
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
1985
2015 George Osborne in 2014 and since expanded. While these institutions will take time to impact
1979 - 1997 | Conservative government
the performance of their economies, they have already been able to tailor policy to their areas
Urban Development Grants
Coastal Communities Fund

Local Employment Subsidy
with the limited control they currently have.

Greater London Festival
Regional Development
Regional Growth Fund

Merseyside Task force
Growing Places Fund

Derelict Land Grants
Local Growth Deals

City Action Teams
Devolution Deals
Enterprise Zones
Garden Festivals
Local Enterprise
The second is the Levelling Up White Paper itself. While not perfect, one of its most welcome
Partnerships
aspects is a setting out of government strategy for improving the performance of different
City Deals
Schemes
Boards
parts of the country that includes identifying trade-offs and areas where policy should be
Grant
focused.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
1980
2010
What this means for the next government

Renewing Neighbourhoods
MAA / City Region Pilots

Policy for the Inner Cities
Housing Market Renewal

Industrial Improvements
Local Enterprise Growth

Coalfields Regeneration
Inner Area Partnerships
Local Area Agreements
Homes & Communities

Inner Urban Area Acts
A major economic headache for the coalition government in 2010 was how to get the economy
Urban Development
Figure 11: A timeline of sub-national economic policies since 1965
1974 - 1979 | Labour govt

Urban Programme
G.E.A.R. Project
creating jobs again to offset the impact of the global financial crisis. Given what has
Corporations
White Paper
(expansion)
Pathfinders
happened over the past 14 years, this will be less of a concern for the next government.
Initiative
Agency
Areas
Fund
Trust
Clearly, what will be an issue is productivity growth. Not only has the UK performed poorly
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
2005
1975
relative to international peers (despite their own struggles), most of its cities have struggled
too. And even London, which led UK productivity growth up until the global financial crisis,
Local Strategic Partnerships
Thames Gateway & London
has hit the buffers. This has had implications for how incomes have grown and the number of
Sustainable Communities
Management Pathfinders
Local Authority Business
Working Neighbourhood
Local Development Plan
people who find themselves in relative poverty.

Development Fund
European Regional
Inner Area Studies
1970 - 1974 | Cons govt
Growth Initiative
Neighbourhood
Labour government | 1997 - 2010
Despite the slowdown in the Greater South East, growth in jobs means its share of the
Olympics
country’s employment, output and income have increased further. On these measures, not
Fund
Plan
only does the North-South divide still exist, it has widened.

▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
2000
1970
And housing, especially in the Greater South East, is a larger issue. It’s even more
New Deal for Communities
unaffordable than it was in 2010.

Community Development
Neighbourhood Renewal
Regional Development
Urban Regeneration
National Coalfields
Urban Programme
Urban Task Force
This is quite some in-tray for the next government. The factor that ties these issues together is
1964 - 1970 | Labour govt
Programme
Companies
growth, specifically a lack of it. Many of the country’s economic problems – high taxes, high
Agencies
projects
Fund
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
1965
1995

national debt, poor income growth and rising relative poverty – have come about because of
poor productivity growth.
Improving productivity must be the focus of the next parliament if economic performance
since 2010 isn’t to be repeated over the remainder of the 2020s. Both main parties have
committed to focusing on growth and taking a long-term approach to this. But how serious
they are will be shown by the policies they put in place.
National-level policies, such as business investment tax reliefs, immigration and the UK’s
trading relationships with the rest of the world, will have a big influence on improving
productivity across the country. Getting these policies right will be a central part of achieving a
stronger UK economy irrespective of anything that falls under the banner of levelling up.
But these national policies will have different impacts in different places. To make the most
of any opportunities, they will need to be complemented by a set of place-based policies that
follow best practice over the past 14 years. Specifically, the next government should:
• Stick with the levelling up agenda and its focus on improving the performance
of the largest cities outside London. Given the ongoing underperformance of large
UK cities relative to their international peers, it’s difficult to see how there can be a more
prosperous UK economy without these cities playing the same role that their equivalents
in other developed countries play. This focus needs to be backed with a multi-decade
programme of policies, as has been seen in Germany.15 Strategies without action don’t
bring about change.
• Continue with devolution. Passing appropriate powers down to the geography
the economy operates over gives places a greater ability to deal with economic
underperformance and change. The trailblazer deals with Greater Manchester and the
West Midlands mark significant progress in devolution, relative to 2010. The next stage
should be to pass fiscal powers to London and other large city regions, while addressing
the clear funding challenges faced by local government following decisions taken under
the banner of austerity.16
• Reform the planning system. The discretionary case-by-case nature of the existing
planning system creates uncertainty and has resulted in decades-long deficits in
housebuilding, squeezing London and the Greater South East in particular. If this is to
change, the next government should build on steps taken in the 2023 Levelling Up and
Regeneration Act to move to a rules-based approach for planning, which exists in other
countries.17
15 Enenkel K and Rösel F (2022), German Reunification: Lessons from the German approach to closing regional economic
divides, London: Resolution Foundation
16 Breach A, Bridgett S and Vera O (2023), In place of centralisation: A devolution deal for London, Greater Manchester, and
the West Midlands, London: Centre for Cities
17 Breach A and Watling S (2023), The housebuilding crisis: The UK’s 4 million missing homes, London: Centre for Cities

03
Cities Outlook
2024
City Monitor
City monitor: The national picture

The latest data The national economy clusters in cities and large towns.
Figure 12 shows that they account for 9 per cent of land but 63 per cent of output and 72 per
cent of knowledge-based jobs in the private sector – the sorts of jobs that the UK will need more
There is considerable variation in the economic performance of cities and towns across the UK. of if it is going to see productivity growth throughout the rest of this decade.
The purpose of this chapter is to show the scale and nature of this variation by highlighting the
performance of the 63 largest urban areas* on 17 indicators covering:
Figure 12: Cities as a share of the national total
• Population • Employment
• Productivity • Skills
72%
62% 62% 63%

60%
• Business dynamics • Housing 54%
40%
• Innovation • Digital connectivity
• Wages • Environment 9%
Land Greenhouse Population High-skilled New Business GVA Private

gas emissions residents economy starts KIBS jobs
For most indicators, the 10 strongest and 10 weakest performing places are presented. firms
Sources:
Land area: Census 2021, ArcGIS
Greenhouse gas emissions: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero 2023, greenhouse gas emissions per capita, 2021 data
Scan Population: ONS 2023, Population estimates-local authority based by five-year age band, 2021 data
for New Economy Firms: Data City, 2023, ONS Population Estimates 2023
a High-skilled residents: ONS 2023, Annual Population Survey, resident analysis, 2022 data. NISRA, 2023, Labour Force Survey, 2022
data.
ll
Business starts: ONS 2023, Business Demography, 2022 data

cit
GVA (£bn): ONS 2023 Regional gross domestic product: local authorities, 2021 data
y data
Private KIBS jobs: ONS 2023, Business Register and Employment Survey, 2022 data
www.centrefo
rci
tie
or Cities Outlook 2024 34

s.
g/
dat
a /data -tool/
Centre for Cities
Which cities' or large towns' population has been growing the most
or the least?
Population Figure 13: Population percentage change, 2012 - 2022 (%)
Ca m bridg e 17.9
Peterborou g h 15.4
Milton Key n es 15.0
E x eter 14.4
North a m pton 12.6
R ea din g 12.5
Table 1: Population growth T elford 12.4
Cov en try 11.8
Slou g h 11.2
Sw in don 10.7
Population Population B ristol 10.7
percentage change, Population, Population, absolute change, Leicester 10.5
Rank City 2012-2022 (%) 2012 2022 2012-2022 Lu ton 10.2
E din bu rg h 10.2
Cra w ley 9.7
10 fastest-growing cities by population W a kefield 9.1
Leeds 8.5
1 Cambridge 17.9 124,679 146,995 22,316 Ma n ch ester 8.2
2 Peterborough 15.4 188,675 217,705 29,030 G lou cester 8.1
B u rn ley 8.0
3 Milton Keynes 15.0 254,003 292,180 38,177 Sou th a m pton 7.4
4 Exeter 14.4 117,980 134,939 16,959 Norw ich 7.3

O x ford 7.1
5 Northampton 12.7 380,827 429,013 48,186 B a sildon 6.9
Liv erpool 6.9
6 Reading 12.6 316,103 355,787 39,684 Ca rdiff 6.9
7 Telford 12.4 167,964 188,871 20,907 New port 6.9
Preston 6.8
8 Coventry 11.8 318,141 355,600 37,459 Lon don 6.6
9 Slough 11.2 143,095 159,182 16,087 B irm in g h a m 6.4

Un ited Kin g dom 6.1
10 Swindon 10.7 212,801 235,657 22,856 Ma n sfield 5.9
W orth in g 5.9
G la sg ow 5.9
10 slowest-growing cities by population B a rn sley 5.7
Ch a th a m 5.4
54 Sheffield 2.7 812,552 834,596 22,044 B elfa st 5.4
55 York 2.7 199,157 204,551 5,394 Aldersh ot 5.3
B ra dford 5.2
56 Ipswich 2.6 135,694 139,247 3,553 B ou rn em ou th 5.1
W ig a n 5.0
57 Brighton 1.9 336,209 342,653 6,444 B la ckbu rn 4.9
58 Portsmouth 1.4 522,789 530,106 7,317 D erby 4.6
Nottin g h a m 4.2
59 Swansea 1.2 378,891 383,440 4,549 Hu ll 4.2
60 Aberdeen 1.1 224,910 227,430 2,520 Middlesbrou g h 4.1
New ca stle 4.2
61 Birkenhead 0.8 319,971 322,453 2,482 W a rrin g ton 3.8
Ply m ou th 3.5
62 Sunderland 0.7 275,317 277,354 2,037 Stoke 3.2
63 Dundee 0.4 147,200 147,720 520 Sou th en d 3.2
Hu ddersfie ld 3.0
United Kingdom 6.1 63,714,974 67,622,516 3,907,542 B la ckpool 2.8
D on ca ster 2.8
Sh e ff i e ld 2.7
Source: ONS 2023, Population estimates, 2012 and 2022 data York 2.7
Note: Due to delays to publication of the Scottish and Northern Irish data, data for Scottish cities and Belfast is for 2011 and 2021. Ipsw ich 2.6
Aberdeen 2.2
B rig h ton 1.9
Portsm ou th 1.4
Sw a n sea 1.2
B irken h ea d 0.8
Su n derla n d 0.7
D u n dee 0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
35 Cities Outlook 2024

Centre for Cities
Which cities or large towns are the most or least productive?

Figure 14: GVA per hour, 2021 (£)
Productivity Slou g h 62.9

Aldersh ot 59.0
W orth in g 51.5
R ea din g 48.6
Lon don 48.1
Sw in don 47.5
• There is a clear split in productivity across the county. All of the 15 cities with higher Milton Key n es 42.1
productivity than the national average are in the South, with the exception of Edinburgh. E din bu rg h 41.4
Cra w ley 40.7
B a sildon 39.0
• GVA per hour in the Greater South East was £42.50 in 2021. It is the only region that is more Norw ich 37.0
productive than the national average. GVA per hour in the rest of Great Britain was £32.10. Ch a th a m 37.0
Ca m bridg e 36.8
B ristol 36.6
• The Greater South East’s strong performance is led by its cities, where the average GVA B rig h ton 36.5
per hour was 29 per cent higher than non-urban areas in the region. This results from the Un ited Kin g dom 36.3
Portsm ou th 36.2
advantages that urban settings provide to high-knowledge businesses in particular. Ab erdeen 35.8
Cov en try 35.8
• However, cities in the rest of Britain were only 0.1 per cent more productive than non-urban Sou th a m pton 35.6
Ipsw ich 34.7 25.8 - 30.1
areas in the rest of the country. Ca rdiff 34.6 30.2 - 34.7
Su n derla n d 33.9
34.8 - 42.1
• Most notable is that with the exception of Bristol, all large cities lag behind the national W a rrin g ton 33.7
42.2 - 51.5
E x eter 33.3
average. Their size should mean that they instead lead the national economy, as happens in Peterborou g h 33.1 51.6 - 62.9
other western European countries.18 It is this underperformance that is the main cause of Lu ton 33.1
B ou rn em ou th 32.9
the wider underperformance of the economy outside of the Greater South East. B la ckpool 32.7
Preston 32.7
Ma n ch ester 32.5
Leeds 32.5
Table 2: GVA per hour G la sg ow 32.1

York 32.1
B elfa st 31.9
Rank City GVA per hour, 2021 (£) Rank City GVA per hour, 2021 (£) O x ford 31.9
D erby 31.9
Leicester 31.7
Middlesbrou g h 31.7
10 cities with the highest GVA per hour 10 cities with the lowest GVA per hour North a m pton 31.6
1 Slough 62.9 54 Wigan 28.7 B irm in g h a m 31.5
B irken h ea d 31.3
2 Aldershot 59.0 55 Dundee 28.4 T elford 31.1
3 Worthing 51.5 56 Bradford 28.4 New ca stle 31.0
Liv erpool 30.8
4 Reading 48.6 57 Gloucester 28.2 W a kefield 30.7
Nottin g h a m 30.1
5 London 48.1 58 Hull 28.1 Sw a n sea 30.1
6 Swindon 47.5 59 Stoke 27.4 New port 29.9
B u rn ley 29.4
7 Milton Keynes 42.1 60 Barnsley 27.3 Sh e ffi eld 29.2
8 Edinburgh 41.4 61 Doncaster 26.1 Hu ddersfield 29.2
Ma n sfield 29.2
9 Crawley 40.7 62 Blackburn 26.0 Ply m ou th 29.2
W ig a n 28.7
10 Basildon 39.0 63 Southend 25.8 D u n dee 28.4
United Kingdom 36.3 B ra dford 28.4
G lou cester 28.2
Hu ll 28.1
Source: ONS 2023, “Regional gross domestic product: local authorities”, “Subregional productivity: labour productivity indices by lo- Stoke 27.4
cal authority district”, 2021 data. Note: GVA measures the contribution of each individual producer, industry or sector to the economy B a rn sley 27.3
D on ca ster 26.1
of the United Kingdom excluding Value Added Tax (VAT); other taxes on products and subsidies on products.
B la ckbu rn 26.0
Sou th en d 25.8
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
18 Swinney P and Enenkel K (2020), Why big cities are crucial to ‘levelling up’, London: Centre for Cities

Centre for Cities
Which cities or large towns have the most or least business

start-ups and closures?
Business dynamics Figure 15: Business start-ups and closures per 10,000 population, 2022
Lon don 83.4 83.8 Start-ups

Lu ton 70.7 74.0 Closures
B rig h ton 70.8 71.2 UK start-ups
Peterborou g h 59.5 70.3 UK closures
Ipsw ich 49.6 63.9
D on ca ster 52.6 63.8
Table 3: Business starts and closures per 10,000 population Slou g h 59.7 67.2
Cov en try 49. 2 57.1
Ca rdiff 44.2 56.8
Ma n ch ester 55.1 56.8
Business start-ups per Business closures per North a m pton 56.3 88.3
Rank City 10,000 population, 2022 10,000 population, 2022 Churn rate* Milton Key n es 53.7 64.7
W a rrin g ton 53.4 61.4
Sou th en d 48.1 52.7
10 cities with the highest start-up rate B a sildon 52.7 55.6
Leeds 52.5 54.3
1 London 83.4 83.8 -0.1
B la ckbu rn 52.3 54.9
2 Luton 74.0 70.7 0.9 Leicester 51.9 80.2
B irm in g h a m 49.8 51.6
3 Brighton 70.8 71.2 -0.1 B la ckpool 42.5 51.2
4 Peterborough 70.3 59.5 2.9 Sou th a m pton 50.6 54.8
Hu ll 38.1 50.2
5 Ipswich 63.9 49.6 4.3 Liv erpool 47.1 50.0
Un ited Kin g dom 49.8 51.1
6 Doncaster 63.8 52.6 3.6 R ea din g 49.7 61.3
7 Slough 59.7 67.2 -1.9 Hu ddersfield 44.0 49.2
B ristol 47.0 48.3
8 Coventry 57.1 49.2 2.7 B ou rn em ou th 48.1 48.1
9 Cardiff 56.8 44.2 3.9 B ra dford 40.8 46.6
Preston 45.9 50.5
10 Manchester 56.8 55.1 0.5 Nottin g h a m 41.2 45.6
Ch a th a m 45.5 46.2
Ma n sfield 38.8 44.1
10 cities with the lowest start-up rate B u rn ley 41.2 43.6
D erby 42.1 43.3
54 Sunderland 37.1 32.4 2.2 Sw in don 43.3 52.2
55 Telford 36.8 33.1 1.3 Sh eff i e ld 36.1 43.1
Edin bu rg h 42.7 43.1
56 Middlesbrough 36.6 38.9 -1.0 W ig a n 40.1 42.9
Aldersh ot 42.6 48.9
57 Portsmouth 36.1 42.3 -2.0 New port 38.9 42.5
58 Swansea 36.1 32.7 1.4 G la sg ow 39.5 42.0
W orth in g 41.9 42.8
59 Plymouth 35.8 32.8 1.3 B irken h ea d 40 . 8 42.6
60 Oxford 35.2 34.3 0.3 Norw ich 39.3 40.2
E x eter 36.7 40.0
61 Gloucester 35.2 38.9 -1.3 York 36.4 39.8
Stoke 39.5 39.7
62 Dundee 33.2 33.2 0.0 Cra w ley 39.7 41.0
63 Belfast 29.7 29.0 0.2 New ca stle 36.6 39.5
Aberdeen 39.4 53.0
United Kingdom 49.8 51.1 -0.3 B a rn sley 38.9 39.4
W a kefield 36.2 38.6
Ca m bridg e 37.8 38.1
Source: ONS 2023, Business Demography, 2022 data; ONS 2023, Population estimates, 2021 and 2022 data. Su n derla n d 32.4 37.1
T elford 33.1 36.8
Middlesbrou g h 36.6 38.9
*Difference between business start-ups and business closures as a percentage of total business stock. Sw a n sea 32.7 36.1
Portsm ou th 36.1 42.3
Ply m ou th 32.8 35.8
O x ford 34.3 35.2
G lou cester 35.2 38.9
D u n dee 33.2 33.2
B elfa st 29.0 29.7
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Business stock Public and private sector jobs
Table 4: Business stock per 10,000 population Table 5: Ratio of private sector to publicly-funded jobs
Business stock per 10,000 Business stock per 10,000 Change, 2021- Private to public ratio, Private sector jobs, Publicly funded jobs,
Rank City population, 2022 population, 2021 2022 (%) Rank City 2022 2022 2022*
10 cities with the highest number of businesses 10 cities with the highest proportion of private sector jobs
1 London 582.4 597.1 -2.4 1 Crawley 6.4 74,000 11,500
2 Brighton 494.7 506.5 -2.3 2 Slough 4.7 70,000 15,000
3 Northampton 423.3 467.2 -9.4 3 Warrington 4.3 114,500 26,500
4 Reading 416.4 434.7 -4.2 4 Aldershot 4.1 87,000 21,000
5 Milton Keynes 413.8 434.3 -4.7 5 Luton 3.8 87,000 23,000
6 Basildon 402.4 407.3 -1.2 6 Swindon 3.8 90,500 24,000
7 Slough 398.0 417.8 -4.7 7 Reading 3.7 167,500 45,000
8 Warrington 395.6 409.8 -3.5 8 London 3.7 4,969,000 1,360,000
9 Aldershot 393.4 404.5 -2.7 9 Milton Keynes 3.5 142,000 40,500
10 Southend 388.0 385.1 0.8 10 Telford 3.5 74,500 21,500
10 cities with the lowest number of businesses 10 cities with the lowest proportion of private sector jobs
54 Barnsley 267.0 271.3 -1.6 53 Plymouth 1.8 76,000 42,000
55 Newcastle 264.4 268.2 -1.4 54 Swansea 1.8 104,000 58,500
56 Stoke 259.4 266.2 -2.5 55 Gloucester 1.8 42,500 24,000
57 Swansea 251.9 256.4 -1.8 56 Liverpool 1.7 224,000 131,500
58 Hull 250.7 243.5 2.9 57 Birkenhead 1.6 65,000 39,500
59 Newport 249.6 249.9 -0.1 58 Exeter 1.6 59,000 38,000
60 Middlesbrough 241.8 250.2 -3.3 59 Worthing 1.5 29,000 19,000
61 Plymouth 235.1 235.7 -0.2 60 Dundee 1.4 46,000 32,000
62 Dundee 233.9 234.2 -0.1 61 Cambridge 1.4 66,000 46,000
63 Sunderland 216.9 220.9 -1.8 62 Oxford 0.9 59,000 64,500
Great Britain 381.4 389.5 -2.1 Great Britain 2.8 23,613,000 8,306,000
Source: ONS 2023, Business Demography, 2022 data; ONS 2023, Population estimates, 2021 and 2022 data.
Source: ONS 2023, Business Register and Employment Survey, 2021 and 2022 data.
Note: Northern Ireland data not available, so the figure for Great Britain is shown.
*Publicly-funded jobs are defined as those jobs that fall into the sectors of public administration and defence, education, and health.
This means that this definition captures private sector jobs in these sectors but also captures jobs such as GPs and those in universi-
ties that the standard ONS definition does not.

Centre for Cities
Which cities or large towns have the highest or lowest number of

new economy firms?
Innovation Figure 16: New economy firms per 10,000 working age population, 2023
B rig h ton 46.8

Ca m bridg e 43.2
Lon don 43.2
Milton Key n es 37.0
W a rrin g ton 34.5
Aldersh ot 33.6
• The ‘new economy’ encompasses emerging knowledge-intensive sectors like FinTech and R ea din g 33.4
advanced manufacturing that are at the forefront of new technologies and innovations. Their E x eter 33.2
Ca rdiff 33.2
performance is important for the UK’s productivity and prosperity because they are at the O x ford 33.1
W orth in g 30.7
frontier of the economy and the number of new economy firms in a city serves as a proxy for B ou rn em ou th 30.4
measuring levels of innovation across the UK. Edin bu rg h 29.7

Aberdeen 29.3
Norw ich 28.8
• The new economy tends to cluster in cities, and city centres in particular. Cities accounted B ristol 28.0
for only 9 per cent of land in the UK, but were home to 62 per cent of new economy firms Ma n ch ester 26.4
Sou th en d 25.9
in 2022. City centres are even more concentrated centres of the new economy: they Un ited Kin g dom 25.6
Portsm ou th 25.2
accounted for 0.1 per cent of land in the UK, but were home to 18 per cent of the new B a sildon 24.8 0 - 20
economy. Leeds 24.8 20 - 30
York 23.9
30 - 40
North a m pton 23.6
• However, the distribution of new economy firms is uneven - 51 per cent of these firms were Sou th a m pton 23.5 40 - 50
located in cities in the Greater South East, and 7 of the 10 cities with the largest numbers of Preston 21.9
B u rn ley 21.9
new economy firms per population are in the Greater South East. B elfa st 21.8
Ipsw ich 21.0
Leicester 20.6
D erby 20.5
Table 6: New economy firms per 10,000 working age population Nottin g h a m 20.4
Sh effield 20.2
Slou g h 20.0
B la ckpool 19.7
New economy firms New economy firms Hu ddersfield 19.6
per 10,000 working per 10,000 working G la sg ow 19.5
Rank City age population, 2023 Rank City age population, 2023 B la ckbu rn 19.4
T elford 19.3
10 cities with the highest number of new economy 10 cities with the lowest number of new economy G lou cester 18.8
firms firms B irm in g h a m 18.6
Cov en try 18.6
1 Brighton 46.8 54 Bradford 14.7 Sw in don 18.6
2 Cambridge 43.2 55 Mansfield 13.8 B irken h ea d 18.1
Stoke 17.9
3 London 43.2 56 Doncaster 13.5 Peterborou g h 17.5
New ca stle 17.4
4 Milton Keynes 37.0 57 Wakefield 13.4 D u n dee 17.4
5 Warrington 34.5 58 Hull 13.4 Ply m ou th 16.5
Liv erpool 16.0
6 Aldershot 33.6 59 Barnsley 13.4 Lu ton 15.5
7 Reading 33.4 60 Newport 12.9 Ch a th a m 15.3
Cra w ley 15.0
8 Exeter 33.2 61 Wigan 12.7 Sw a n sea 14.9
B ra dford 14.7
9 Cardiff 33.2 62 Middlesbrough 12.4 Ma n sfield 13.8
10 Oxford 33.1 63 Sunderland 12.4 D on ca ster 13.5
W a kefield 13.4
United Kingdom 25.6 Hu ll 13.4
B a rn sley 13.4
New port 12.9
Source: The Data City, 2023; ONS 2023, Population estimates, 2022 data. W ig a n 12.7
Middlesbrou g h 12.4
Su n derla n d 12.4
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Centre for Cities
Which cities or large towns have the highest or lowest wages?

Figure 17: Average weekly workplace earnings by region, 2023 (£)
Wages City or large town Regional average
752.3
G rea ter Sou th E a st S o u th e n d Lo n d o n
• The average weekly workplace wage in cities was £709 in 2023 - higher than the UK average
of £666. However, this was the result of a strong performance of a small number of cities -
just 17 cities had an average weekly wage that was above the UK average. Na tion a l Un ite d K in g d o m | 666.1
• There is also a clear divide between the Greater South East and the rest of the country: the
average weekly wage for jobs in the South East was 23 per cent higher than in the rest of the
660.5
country. Scotla n d Dundee A b e rd e e n
• That said, while many cities lag the national average, a number of them lead their regional
averages. Cities such as Belfast, Manchester, York and Newcastle are examples of this. This
622.0
underscores the importance of cities in their regional contexts even if they underperform in North W est Burnley Warrington
the national context.
616.1
Table 7: Average weekly workplace earnings W est Midla n ds S to ke Co v e n try
Average weekly Average weekly

workplace earnings, workplace earnings, 605.4
Rank City 2023 (£) Rank City 2023 (£) North ern Irela n d B e lfa st
10 cities with the highest average weekly workplace 10 cities with the lowest average weekly workplace
earnings earnings
1 London 875 54 Sunderland 569 604.8
2 Slough 853 55 Doncaster 567 Sou th W est P ly m o u th S w in d o n
3 Reading 788 56 Blackburn 567

4 Crawley 788 57 Stoke 565
604.0
5 Cambridge 761 58 Leicester 563 Yorksh ire a n d
Hud d e rsf i e l d Le e d s
T h e Hu m ber
6 Milton Keynes 757 59 Birkenhead 561
7 Aberdeen 746 60 Huddersfield 550
8 Coventry 745 61 Burnley 547
591.8
9 Edinburgh 743 62 Southend 539 W a les S w a n se a Ca rd iff
10 Aldershot 716 63 Mansfield 536

United Kingdom 666
589.6
E a st Midla n ds M a nsfie l d D e rb y
Source: ONS 2023, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), average gross weekly workplace-based earnings, 2023 data. Own
calculations for PUA-levels weighted by number of jobs. Earnings data is for employees only.
573.1
North E a st S u n d e rla n d N e wc a s t l e
520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880

Unemployment benefit claimant count
Employment Table 9: Unemployment benefit claimant count
Rank City Claimant count rate, Nov 2023 (%)
10 cities with the lowest claimant count rate

1 York 1.7
Employment rate
2 Cambridge 1.9
3 Exeter 1.9
4 Oxford 2.3
Table 8: Employment rate
5 Edinburgh 2.3
6 Aldershot 2.4
Employment rate 2022- Employment rate 2021- Percentage point
7 Warrington 2.5
Rank City 2023 (%) 2022 (%) change
8 Worthing 2.8
9 Bristol 2.8
10 cities with the highest employment rate
10 Reading 2.9
1 Ipswich 83.1 85.7 -3.0
2 Aldershot 82.9 77.7 6.8
10 cities with the highest claimant count rate
3 York 82.8 81.6 1.5
54 Slough 5.1
4 Norwich 82.1 81.4 0.8
55 Blackburn 5.1
5 Reading 81.7 81.1 0.7
56 Peterborough 5.2
6 Basildon 81.3 84.2 -3.5
57 Coventry 5.3
7 Edinburgh 81.2 80.9 0.4
58 Burnley 5.3
8 Warrington 81.2 79.3 2.3
59 Liverpool 5.4
9 Northampton 80.1 78.3 2.3
60 Hull 5.7
10 Milton Keynes 80.0 81.7 -2.1
61 Luton 5.8
62 Bradford 6.5
10 cities with the lowest employment rate
63 Birmingham 6.9
53 Mansfield 70.6 72.5 -2.7
United Kingdom 3.7
54 Birmingham 69.5 69.0 0.7
55 Leicester 69.3 71.7 -3.3
Source: ONS 2023, Claimant Count, November 2023 data. Population estimates, 2022 estimates for England and Wales and 2021
56 Newcastle 69.2 71.2 -2.7
estimates for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Due to the gradual roll of Universal Credit, there is variation in the definition of claimants
57 Blackburn 69.0 65.3 5.7 across different cities. Despite this, the claimant count rate serves as a good indicator for the strength of demand for workers across
58 Nottingham 68.8 73.5 -6.4 cities.
59 Liverpool 68.3 75.2 -9.1

60 Bradford 67.6 71.8 -5.8
61 Burnley 65.8 66.8 -1.5
62 Dundee 62.8 69.0 -9.0
Great Britain 75.6 75.5 0.1
Source: ONS 2023, Annual Population Survey, resident analysis, April 2021 – March 2023
Note: Northern Ireland data not available, so the figure for Great Britain is shown. Data for Belfast is for the calendar years 2021 and
2022.

Which cities or large towns have the highest and lowest ... and unemployment benefit claimant count?
employment rate ...
Figure 19: Claimant count, November 2023 (%)
Figure 18: Employment rate, 2022 - 2023 (%)
City or large town Regional average City or large town Regional average
78. 3 4. 8
Sou th W est P ly m o u th B o u rn e m o u th W est Midla n ds T e l f o rd B i r mi n g h a m
77. 0 4. 1
G rea ter Sou th E a st Wo r t h i n g I p swi c h North W est Wa r r i n g t o n L i ve rp o o l
Na tion a l Un ite d K in g d o m | 75. 5 Yorksh ire a n d 4. 0

York Bradford
T h e Hu m ber
75. 2
E a st Midla n ds Nottingham N o rth a m p to n
3. 9
North E a st S un d e r l a n d M i d d l e s b r o ug h
74. 8
Scotla n d Dundee E d in b u rg h
3. 7
G rea ter Sou th E a st C a mb r i d g e L ut o n
74. 3
W est Midla n ds B i r mi n g h a m T e lfo rd
Na tion a l Un ite d K in g d o m | 3. 7
74. 2
Yorksh ire a n d 3. 3
B ra d fo rd Y o rk
T h e Hu m ber E a st Midla n ds N o r t h a mp t o n Derby
73. 8 3. 2
North W est B u rn le y Wa r r i n g t o n W a les S wa n s e a N e wp o r t
73. 6 3. 1
W a les C ardiff N e wp o r t North ern Irela n d B e l f a st
71. 9 3. 0
North ern Irela n d B e l f a st Scotla n d Edinburgh D undee
71. 2 2. 5
North E a st N e wc a st l e S un d e r l a n d Sou th W est E xe t e r G l o uc e ste r
62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
High-level qualifications
Skills Table 11: Residents with high-level qualifications
Working age population with high skills

Rank City (RQF4 or above) qualifications, 2022 (%)
10 cities with the highest percentage of people with high-level qualifications

No formal qualifications 1 Edinburgh 73.2
2 Oxford 70.7
3 Cambridge 65.9
Table 10: Residents with no formal qualifications
4 Dundee 65.9
5 York 60.3
Working age population with no 6 Reading 58.7
Rank City formal qualifications, 2022 (%)
7 London 57.9
8 Brighton 57.2
10 cities with the highest percentage of people with no formal qualifications
9 Glasgow 56.7
1 Belfast 15.4
10 Bristol 53.9
2 Blackburn 13.1
3 Hull 12.4
10 cities with the lowest percentage of people with high-level qualifications
4 Southend 12.2
53 Middlesbrough 32.0
5 Bradford 11.9
54 Telford 31.4
6 Coventry 11.5
55 Barnsley 31.1
7 Telford 10.8
56 Southend 31.1
8 Plymouth 10.7
57 Burnley 30.4
9 Newport 10.7
58 Hull 29.6
10 Peterborough 10.6
59 Blackburn 29.1
60 Sunderland 29.0
10 cities with the lowest percentage of people with no formal qualifications
61 Mansfield 27.2
53 Aberdeen 4.6
62 Wakefield 26.7
54 Oxford 4.6
United Kingdom 45.5
55 Milton Keynes 4.4
56 Northampton 4.2
57 Cambridge 4.1 Source: ONS 2023, Annual Population Survey, resident analysis, 2022 and 2021 data,
Note: Northern Ireland data not available, so the figure for Great Britain is shown. There is no 2022 data for Worthing and so it is
58 Norwich 3.8 excluded. For PUAs where data for an individual local authority is not available e.g. Newcastle-under-Lyme the PUA figure has been
59 Exeter 3.5 estimated using the remaining local authorities in the definition.
60 Dundee 3.4
Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) is the classification given to different qualifications and replaces the National Vocational
61 York 3.0 Qualifications (NVQ) measure that has historically been reported by ONS. RQF level 4 plus captures qualifications from Higher Nation-
al Certificates though to doctorates.
62 Chatham 2.6
United Kingdom 7.0
Source: ONS 2023, Annual Population Survey, resident analysis, 2022 and 2021 data,
Note: Northern Ireland data not available, so the figure for Great Britain is shown.

Which cities or large towns have the highest and lowest share of ... and high-skilled population?
people with no formal qualifications...
Figure 21: Working-age population with a high-level qualification (RFQ4 or
Figure 20: Working-age population with no formal qualifications, 2022 (%) above), 2022 (%)
City or large town Regional average City or large town Regional average
13. 6 54. 2
North ern Irela n d Belfast Scotla n d Aberdeen Edinburgh
8. 8 50. 8
W a les Swansea Newport G rea ter Sou th E a st Southend Oxford
8. 5 Na tion a l Un ite d K in g d o m | 45. 5

W est Midla n ds Birmingham Coventry
43. 7
8. 0 Sou th W est Swindon Bristol
Scotla n d Dundee Glasgow
42. 6
8. 0 North W est Blackburn Warrington
North E a st Sunderland Newcastle
41. 4
8. 0 W a les New port C a r d i ff
Yorksh ire a n d
York Hull
T h e Hu m ber
40. 4
8. 0
W est Midla n ds Telford Stoke
North W est Preston Blackburn
38. 9
Yorksh ire a n d
W a k e fi e l d York
Na tion a l Un ite d K in g d o m | 7. 0 T h e Hu m ber
7. 0 38. 8
E a st Midla n ds Northampton M a n s fi e l d North ern Irela n d Belfast
5. 5 37. 8
Sou th W est Exeter Plymouth E a st Midla n ds M a n s fi e l d Derby
5. 4 36. 7
G rea ter Sou th E a st Ch a t h a m Southend North E a st Sunderland Newcastle
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Centre for Cities
Which cities or large towns have the highest or lowest house

prices?
Housing Figure 22: Average house price, 2023 (£)
Lon don 692,900

O x ford 618,000
Ca m bridg e 575,000
B rig h ton 484,400
R ea din g 456,600
Aldersh ot 442,500
Table 12: House price growth B ou rn em ou th 401,100
B a sildon 382,700
Slou g h 377,600
B ristol 375,900
Difference in Sou th en d 375,200
Annual growth, Average price, Average price, average prices, W orth in g 372,600
Rank City 2022-2023 (%) 2023 (£) 2022 (£) 2022-2023 (£) Cra w ley 350,700
York 345,700
E x eter 345,200
10 cities with the highest increases in house prices Milton Key n es 344,000
Un ited Kin g dom 328,600
1 Oxford 8.7 618,000 568,500 49,500 North a m pton 312,400
2 Slough 3.7 377,600 364,200 13,500 Portsm ou th 312,300
Ch a th a m 311,300
3 York 3.4 345,700 334,400 11,200 Edin bu rg h 311,100 100,000 - 200,000
Norw ich 296,200 200,000 - 300,000
4 Warrington 3.1 276,400 268,100 8,300 Sou th a m pton 292,500
300,000 - 400,000
5 Ipswich 3.0 254,900 247,600 7,400 Lu ton 291,700
Ca rdiff 283,900 400,000 - 500,000
6 Crawley 2.4 350,700 342,600 8,100 Sw in don 280,300 500,000 - 600,000
7 Belfast 1.4 174,000 171,600 2,500 W a rrin g ton 276,400
600,000 - 700,000
Leicester 260,600
8 Peterborough 1.4 252,500 249,100 3,400 Ipsw ich 254,900
Leeds 253,200
9 Glasgow 1.3 214,800 212,100 2,700 Peterborou g h 252,500
10 Aldershot 0.7 442,500 439,300 3,200 G lou cester 250,900
Ma n ch ester 249,100
B irm in g h a m 248,300
10 cities with the greatest reduction in house prices Ply m ou th 232,600

B irken h ea d 230,600
54 Southend -4.5 375,200 392,800 -17,700 Nottin g h a m 230,000
Cov en try 226,700
55 Hull -4.7 130,800 137,200 -6,400 T elford 223,300
56 Milton Keynes -4.8 344,000 361,300 -17,300 Sh effield 221,200
New port 221,000
57 Basildon -4.9 382,700 402,500 -19,800 G la sg ow 214,800
D erby 212,200
58 Sunderland -5.6 142,700 151,300 -8,500
Hu ddersfield 207,400
59 Aberdeen -5.7 176,600 187,300 -10,700 Preston 206,200
New ca stle 198,800
60 Barnsley -5.7 163,100 173,000 -9,900 W a kefield 197,300
61 Wigan -6.5 176,000 188,300 -12,300 B ra dford 190,800
Sw a n sea 190,100
62 Blackburn -7.1 150,600 162,100 -11,500 Ma n sfield 186,200
Liv erpool 177,200
63 Burnley -8.6 128,500 140,600 -12,100 Aberdeen 176,600
United Kingdom 5.3 328,600 340,000 -11,400 W ig a n 176,000
B la ckpool 175,800
B elfa st 174,000
D on ca ster 165,900
Source: Land Registry 2023, Market Trend Data, Price Paid, 2023 data. Simple average used. Scottish House Price Statistics 2023, B a rn sley 163,100
D u n dee 162,300
Mean House Prices, 2022 and 2023 data. Northern Ireland Finance, Land and Property Services 2023.
Middlesbrou g h 157,300
Note: Prices in Scotland are an average of the first two quarters of the year. Prices in Northern Ireland are an average of the first three Stoke 156,200
quarters of the year. B la ckbu rn 150,600
Su n derla n d 142,700
Hu ll 130,800
B u rn ley 128,500
100K 200K 300K 400K 500K 600K 700K

Centre for Cities
Housing affordability Which cities or large towns have the most or least affordable
housing?
Table 13: Housing affordability ratio Figure 23: Housing affordability ratio, 2023
O x ford 15.4
Rank City Affordability ratio Average house price, 2023 (£) Annual wages, 2023 (£) Lon don 13.5
B rig h ton 13.1
B ou rn em ou th 12.2
10 cities with the highest affordability ratio Ca m bridg e 11.8
E x eter 11.5
1 Oxford 15.4 618,000 40,200 W orth in g 11.3
2 London 13.5 692,900 51,400 B ristol 11.0

Slou g h 10.7
3 Brighton 13.1 484,400 36,900 Aldersh ot 10.7
York 10.5
4 Bournemouth 12.2 401,100 32,800 Cra w ley 10.3
5 Cambridge 11.8 575,000 48,700 R ea din g 10.0
Sou th en d 9.9
6 Exeter 11.5 345,200 30,000 B a sildon 9.9
7 Worthing 11.3 372,600 33,000 Lu ton 9.9
Norw ich 9.8
8 Bristol 11.0 375,900 34,200 Portsm ou th 9.8
Leicester 9.4
9 Slough 10.7 377,600 35,200 Milton Key n es 9.2
10 Aldershot 10.7 442,500 41,500 Ch a th a m 9.2 0-5
Un ited Kin g dom 9.0 5 - 7.5
Sou th a m pton 9.0
7.5 - 10
10 cities with the lowest affordability ratio North a m pton 9.0
Ca rdiff 8.7 10 - 12.5
54 Barnsley 5.6 163,100 29,000 Ipsw ich 8.4 12.5 - 15
G lou cester 8.3
15 - 17.5
55 Belfast 5.6 174,000 31,300 Peterborou g h 8.3
56 Stoke 5.6 156,200 28,100 Sw in don 8.2
57 Dundee 5.5 162,300 29,200 Ply m ou th 8.0
58 Blackburn 5.5 150,600 27,500 Edin bu rg h 8.0
W a rrin g ton 7.9
59 Middlesbrough 5.2 157,300 30,200 Ma n ch ester 7.8
Leeds 7.7
60 Hull 5.0 130,800 26,400 Nottin g h a m 7.7
61 Sunderland 4.9 142,700 29,000 Cov en try 7.6
Sh effield 7.4
62 Burnley 4.7 128,500 27,200 T elford 7.4
63 Aberdeen 4.6 176,600 38,700 B irken h ea d 7.2
New port 7.2
United Kingdom 9.0 328,600 36,500 D erby 7.0
Hu ddersfield 6.9
B ra dford 6.7
Preston 6.6
Source: Land Registry 2023, Market Trend Data, Price Paid, 2023 data. Simple average used. Scottish House Price Statistics 2023, Sw a n sea 6.5
Mean House Prices, 2022 and 2023 data. Northern Ireland Finance, Land and Property Services 2023. ONS 2023, Pay As You Earn W a kefield 6.5
Real Time Information, UK: December 2023. Ma n sfield 6.4
New ca stle 6.4
G la sg ow 6.4
B la ckpool 6.1
Liv erpool 6.0
W ig a n 5.8
D on ca ster 5.8
B a rn sley 5.6
B elfa st 5.6
Stoke 5.6
D u n dee 5.5
B la ckbu rn 5.5
Middlesbrou g h 5.2
Hu ll 5.0
Su n derla n d 4.9
B u rn ley 4.7
Aberdeen 4.6
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Centre for Cities
Housing stock growth
Table 14: Housing stock growth
Change, 2021 – Housing stock, Housing stock, Change, 2021-

Rank City 2022 (%) 2022 2021 2022
10 cities with the highest housing stock growth

1 Telford 2.1 80,970 79,340 1,630
2 Milton Keynes 1.7 119,520 117,520 2,000
3 Reading 1.6 145,950 143,620 2,330
4 Edinburgh 1.3 261,000 257,660 3,340
5 Exeter 1.3 56,350 55,630 720
6 Coventry 1.3 145,260 143,410 1,850
7 Bristol 1.3 329,440 325,330 4,110
8 Northampton 1.2 181,940 179,750 2,190
9 Peterborough 1.1 88,900 87,900 1,000
10 Swindon 1.1 100,950 99,850 1,100
10 cities with the lowest housing stock growth

54 Worthing 0.5 51,720 51,470 250
55 York 0.4 91,050 90,640 400
56 Birkenhead 0.4 151,550 150,920 630
57 Huddersfield 0.4 188,810 188,110 700
58 Bournemouth 0.4 186,920 186,220 700
59 Newport 0.4 112,900 112,500 400
60 Plymouth 0.3 121,870 121,530 340
61 Ipswich 0.3 61,630 61,460 170
62 Swansea 0.2 181,300 180,900 400
63 Portsmouth 0.2 235,930 235,420 510
United Kingdom 0.9 30,154,270 29,884,190 270,080
Source: Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Dwelling stock estimates in England: 2022, England 2021-2022 data;
National Records of Scotland, Housing and Dwellings in Scotland, 2022, Scotland 2021-2022 data; Welsh Government dwelling stock
estimates by local authority and tenure, 2022, Wales March 2021- March 2022 data; Northern Ireland Department of Finance, Annual
housing stock statistics, 2023, Northern Ireland 2021-2022 data.

Centre for Cities
Which cities or large towns have the fastest or slowest broadband?

Figure 24: Share of connections subscribed to 30Mbps+, 2022 - 2023 (%)
Digital connectivity Ca rdiff 90.6 92.6 2023

Cra w ley 91.1 92.2 2022
Lu ton 90.9 92.2 UK 2023
B elfa st 88.2 92.1 UK 2022
Aldersh ot 89.8 91.2
W orth in g 88.2 91.1
Table 15: Subscriptions achieving ultrafast broadband speeds (>30 Mbps) Ca m bridg e 90.0 91.1
Nottin g h a m 88.0 90.7
Ma n sfield 88.5 90.3
B rig h ton 88.2 90.0
Share of connections Share of connections Cov en try 84.8 89.9
receiving 30Mbps+, receiving 30Mbps+, Percentage point Ch a th a m 87.3 89.8
Rank City 2023 (%) 2022 (%) change, 2022-2023 O x ford 88.6 89.7
D erby 86.4 89.7
E din bu rg h 87.1 89.7
10 cities with the highest share of subscribers receiving 30Mbps+ speeds W a rrin g ton 86.1 89.7
B la ckbu rn 87.5 89.4
1 Cardiff 92.6 90.6 2.0 Liv erpool 85.5 89.3
2 Crawley 92.2 91.1 1.1 G lou cester 87.8 89.3
B ristol 86.3 89.1
3 Luton 92.2 90.9 1.3 Leicester 87.0 89.1
4 Belfast 92.1 88.2 3.9 Portsm ou th 87.2 89.1
D u n dee 86.6 89.1
5 Aldershot 91.2 89.8 1.4 Leeds 84.6 89.0
6 Worthing 91.1 88.2 2.9 B irken h ea d 83.6 88.6
7 Cambridge 91.1 90.0 1.1 Peterborou g h 86.1 88.6
Ipsw ich 85.8 88.6
8 Nottingham 90.7 88.0 2.8 B u rn ley 86.2 88.5
9 Mansfield 90.3 88.5 1.8 New port 86.1 88.4
R ea din g 86.4 88.4
10 Brighton 90.0 88.2 1.8 B irm in g h a m 85.6 88.4
North a m pton 85.1 88.4
B a sildon 84.9 88.3
10 cities with the lowest share of subscribers receiving 30Mbps+ speeds Sw a n sea 85.8 88.2
T elford 85.7 88.0
54 Doncaster 85.7 81.8 3.9 Preston 85.2 88.0
55 Southend 85.6 82.8 2.8 Sw in don 83.2 88.0
W ig a n 85.9 87.9
56 Huddersfield 85.6 82.2 3.4 G la sg ow 85.1 87.8
Stoke 85.4 87.7
57 Wakefield 85.3 81.1 4.2 Lon don 85.2 87.7
58 Bradford 85.0 81.9 3.1 Ply m ou th 85.8 87.5
B la ckpool 83.9 87.2
59 Southampton 84.1 80.7 3.4 Slou g h 83.2 87.2
60 Hull 83.7 91.7 -7.9 B ou rn em ou th 85.3 87.1
Milton Key n es 83.4 86.9
61 Aberdeen 83.3 78.6 4.7 Norw ich 84.4 86.8
New ca stle 84.0 86.8
62 York 81.9 80.5 1.4 Su n derla n d 83.8 86.5
63 Sheffield 79.6 75.7 3.9 B a rn sley 84.4 86.5
E x eter 82.3 86.0
United Kingdom 85.9 83.0 2.9 Middlesbrou g h 82.8 85.9
Un ited Kin g dom 82.8 85.7
D on ca ster 81.8 85.7
Source: Ofcom 2023, Fixed connections coverage and performance, 2023 data Sou th en d 82.8 85.6
Note: Share of connections receiving 30Mbps+ is defined as the share of all connections that have an average measured speed Hu ddersfield 82.2 85.6
greater than 30 Mbit/s. Therefore, it takes into account the availability, the take up and the quality of internet connections. W a kefield 81.1 85.3
B ra dford 81.9 85.0
Sou th a m pton 80.7 84.1
Hu ll 83.7 91.7
Aberdeen 78.6 83.3
York 80.5 81.9
Sh effield 75.7 79.6
74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Centre for Cities
Which cities or large towns have the highest or lowest Greenhouse

gas emissions?
Environment Figure 25: Greenhouse gas emissions per capita, 2020 - 2021 (t)
W orth in g 2.7 2.8 2021

B rig h ton 2.9 3.0 2020
Lu ton 3.0 3.1 UK 2021
Ch a th a m 3.3 3.3 UK 2020
B ou rn em ou th 3.1 3.3
Sou th en d 3.3 3.4
Greenhouse gas emissions Sou th a m pton 3.2 3.4
Ipsw ich 3.3 3.4
Portsm ou th 3.3 3.5
• Cities are on average greener than the rest of the country. They accounted for 54 per cent Ply m ou th 3.2 3.5
Lon don 3.3 3.6
of the total population but only 40 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2021. B irken h ea d 3.6 3.7
Average UK emissions per capita in 2021 totalled 6 tonnes while the city average was lower R ea din g 3.5 3.7
E x eter 3.6 3.8
at 4.4 tonnes. Ca m bridg e 3.6 3.8
G lou cester 3.4 3.8
• This in part is because cities account for low shares, relative to their share of population, of Cov en try 3.7 3.9
B ra dford 3.6 3.9
the two principal contributors to the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions – transport emissions B irm in g h a m 3.7 4.0
O x ford 3.6 4.0
and industry emissions. They were the source of 40 per cent of transport emissions and 39 W ig a n 3.9 4.1
per cent of industry emissions. B la ckbu rn 4.2 4.3
New ca stle 4.0 4.2
Liv erpool 4.0 4.2
• Swansea has much higher per capita emissions than any other city because of its industrial Hu ll 4.0 4.2
emissions – likely linked to the steel plant at Port Talbot. On a per capita basis, its industrial Leicester 3.8 4.2
E din bu rg h 3.8 4.2
emissions were 17.6 tonnes per head in 2021, compared to the UK average of 1.2 tonnes. Sw in don 4.2 4.3
D u n dee 4.2 4.3
• Emissions increased in almost every city between 2020 and 2021, likely reflecting the Su n derla n d 4.1 4.3
reopening of economy. Despite this, they were still lower than 2019 levels in every city bar B ristol 4.2 4.4
Derby, Ipswich, Mansfield and Plymouth. Ma n sfield 4.1 4.4

York 4.0 4.4
G la sg ow 3.9 4.4
Hu ddersfield 4.2 4.5
Table 16: Total greenhouse gas emissions per capita Sh effield 4.5 4.6
Cra w ley 4.4 4.6
emissions emissions emissions emissions D erby 4.3 4.6
per capita, per capita, per capita, per capita, B u rn ley 4.5 4.7
Rank City 2021 (t) 2020 (t) Rank City 2021 (t) 2020 (t) Milton Key n es 4.5 4.7
Nottin g h a m 4.3 4.7
Leeds 4.7 4.8
Aldersh ot 4.4 4.8
10 cities with the lowest emissions per capita 10 cities with the highest emissions per capita Norw ich 4.4 4.8
1 Worthing 2.8 2.7 54 Peterborough 5.4 5.2 Slou g h 4.6 4.9
B la ckpool 4.7 5.0
2 Brighton 3.0 2.9 55 Wakefield 5.7 5.4 Ca rdiff 4.4 5.0
3 Luton 3.1 3.0 56 Preston 6.0 5.8 Stoke 4.7 5.2
B a sildon 5.4 5.5
4 Chatham 3.3 3.3 57 Belfast 6.2 5.9 Aberdeen 4.9 5.4
B a rn sley 5.0 5.4
5 Bournemouth 3.3 3.1 58 Newport 6.2 5.8 T elford 5.2 5.4
6 Southend 3.3 3.4 59 Northampton 6.6 w6.2 Peterborou g h 5.2 5.4
W a kefield 5.4 5.7
7 Southampton 3.4 3.2 60 Doncaster 6.7 6.3 Un ited Kin g dom 5.6 6.0
8 Ipswich 3.4 3.3 61 Warrington 6.8 6.2 Preston 5.8 6.0
B elfa st 5.9 6.2
9 Portsmouth 3.5 3.3 62 Middlesbrough 8.5 10.2 New port 5.8 6.2
North a m pton 6.2 6.6
10 Plymouth 3.5 3.2 63 Swansea 21.8 21.2 D on ca ster 6.3 6.7
United Kingdom 6.0 5.6 W a rrin g ton 6.2 6.8
Middlesbrou g h 8.5 10.2
Source: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2023, Greenhouse gas emissions: local authority and regional, 2020-2021 data; Sw a n sea 21.2 21.8
Population estimates, ONS 2023, 2020-2021 data. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Centre for Cities
Air quality Which cities or large towns have the best or worst air quality?
Figure 26: Number of days a year of poor air quality, 2023
Table 17: Number of days a year of poor air quality
Su n derla n d 7 12 2023
Number of days with poor air quality, D u n dee 6 9 2022
Rank City 2023 E din bu rg h 1 9
Cra w ley 11 18
10 cities with the best air quality B elfa st 4 11
1 Sunderland 7 New ca stle 12 12
Aberdeen 6 13
2 Dundee 9 W orth in g 14 21
3 Edinburgh 9 Slou g h 15 23
B rig h ton 15 17
4 Crawley 11 Sw in don 16 22
York 16 21
5 Belfast 11 W a rrin g ton 16 20
6 Newcastle 12 Ch a th a m 17 25
Aldersh ot 17 23
7 Aberdeen 13 G lou cester 17 21
8 Worthing 14 B la ckbu rn 17 18
Lu ton 18 28
9 Brighton 15 Ca m bridg e 18 28
10 Slough 15 Cov en try 18 24
Preston 18 19
B u rn ley 18 19
G la sg ow 9 18
10 cities with the worst air quality R ea din g 19 28
54 Norwich 24 North a m pton 19 24
D on ca ster 19 21
55 Birmingham 25 Liv erpool 19 21
56 Manchester 25 W ig a n 19 19
Hu ll 17 19
57 Bristol 26 Ipsw ich 20 26
B a sildon 20 23
58 Mansfield 26
New port 19 20
59 Nottingham 26 Stoke 19 20
B irken h ea d 18 20
60 Southend 26 T elford 17 20
61 Bournemouth 27 D erby 16 20
Peterborou g h 21 28
62 Swansea 31 O x ford 21 27
63 London 34 Sh e ffi eld 21 22
W a kefield 21 21
B a rn sley 21 21
Ca rdiff 21 21
E x eter 20 21
Source: Met Office 2023, number of days of poor air quality, Dec 2022 – Dec 2023 data.
B la ckpool 18 21
Note: data for the 9th of October 2023 was discounted die to moderate and high DAQI forecasts over a large area of the UK that was
Middlesbrou g h 17 21
not observed. Milton Key n es 22 28
Portsm ou th 22 25
Hu ddersfield 22 22
Ply m ou th 13 22
Sou th a m pton 23 24
Leeds 22 23
Leicester 22 23
B ra dford 21 23
Norw ich 24 29
B irm in g h a m 25 27
Ma n ch ester 23 25
Sou th en d 26 31
B ristol 23 26
Nottin g h a m 23 26
Ma n sfield 20 26
B ou rn em ou th 25 27
Sw a n sea 20 31
Lon don 34 36
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

January 2024
Centre for Cities

Second Floor
9 Holyrood Street
London SE1 2EL
020 7803 4300

info@centreforcities.org
www.centreforcities.org
© Centre for Cities 2024
Centre for Cities is a registered charity (No 1119841) and a

company limited by guarantee registered in England (No 6215397)

UK Cities Outlook 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK Cities Outlook 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cities Outlook

For more information, please visit www.centreforcities.org/about

As a registered charity (no. 1119841) we rely on external support to deliver our

To find out more please visit: www.centreforcities.org/about/partnerships

62% 62% 63%

Land Greenhouse Population High-skilled New Business GVA Private

2. Economic performance varies across the country

Stick with the levelling up agenda and its focus

Introduce the next phase of devolution, building

Reform the planning system, building on steps

I Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 II

Testimonials We know devolution is working and more powers and

Cities Outlook 2024 brings home the urgency of the

We welcome the report’s call for further progress

Cllr Susan Hinchliffe

III Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 IV

I have no doubt that this data from Centre for Cities

Mayor Marvin Rees

V Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 VI

1 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 2

election year The differing roles of cities and towns

3 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 4

London and levelling up

5 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 6

7 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 8

How places have fared

9 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 10

11 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 12

Sou th en d 5.76.9 Aberdeen 0.1 0.1

UK average 1998-2010 | 1.5

UK average 1998-2010 | 1.5

13 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 14

Poor productivity improvements have squeezed disposable

15 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 16

Change in housing affordability, 2010 - 2022 Stoke

6 Sou th a m pton 1,135

UK a v era g e 1998-2010 | 3,300

Source: ONS; Land Registry; Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics

17 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 18

Source: ONS, CiLiF (DWP Stat Xplore)

19 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 20

Aldersh ot 4.2 B ou rn em ou th 4.3

R ea din g 4.0 North a m pton 4.2

Sw a n sea 3.9 Ma n ch ester 4.2

Lu ton 3.8 York 4.1

Source: CiLiF (DWP Stat Xplore)

Note: Does not include Belfast

21 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 22

trends had continued Exeter -16,990 Barnsley -3,880 Cumulative difference

23 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 24

Box 5: What has happened in Aberdeen? London

Real gross domestic household income (£)

Source: ONS ; Centre for Cities’ calculations

40,000 Real GDHI per head (2022 prices)

25 Cities Outlook 2024 Cities Outlook 2024 26

Levelling Up White Paper

City Region Sustainable

Left Behind Towns Fund

seriously grapple with the geographically imbalanced nature of the UK economy.

Government Devolution Act

Introducing a degree of consistency and stability in sub-national economic policy will be an

Future High Streets Fund

Industrial Strategy White

Cities and Local