Skip to content
Lincolnshire Counts — Lincolnshire, in numbers.Local help →

Peascliffe & Ridgeway · South Kesteven

Peascliffe & Ridgeway: your neighbourhood

Peascliffe & Ridgeway electoral ward · May 2026 boundaries. Every figure carries its own date.

What stands out here?

People aged 65 or over: 28% here, compared with 23.1% across South Kesteven (4.9 percentage points higher).

Age helps locate demand for accessible homes, transport and support. Being older does not itself mean someone needs care.

21 March 2021 · ward and council use the same source, measure and date.

Why this comparison is valid

The difference is in percentage points. The wider figure is the published council total, not the average of its wards. Differences describe groups, not every resident.

Source →
A proposed response →

Homes rented privately: 14% here, compared with 18% across South Kesteven (4.4 percentage points lower).

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

21 March 2021 · ward and council use the same source, measure and date.

Why this comparison is valid

The difference is in percentage points. The wider figure is the published council total, not the average of its wards. Differences describe groups, not every resident.

Source →
A proposed response →

Homes rented from a council or housing association: 16% here, compared with 12% across South Kesteven (3.2 percentage points higher).

The share of social housing describes the homes already here. It does not show the current waiting list or whether enough suitable homes are available.

21 March 2021 · ward and council use the same source, measure and date.

Why this comparison is valid

The difference is in percentage points. The wider figure is the published council total, not the average of its wards. Differences describe groups, not every resident.

Source →
A proposed response →

The ward in numbers

People aged 65 or over

28%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All usual residents

1,357 out of 4,850.

Source and method →

People reporting bad or very bad health

5.9%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised

284 out of 4,847.

Source and method →

People counted in the census

4,848

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All usual residents

4,848 out of 4,848.

Source and method →

People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent

28.6%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

Residents aged 16 and over

1,162 out of 4,064.

Source and method →

Households facing at least one measured disadvantage

53.1%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All households

1,149 out of 2,164.

Source and method →

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages

17.3%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All households

374 out of 2,164.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ outside the labour market

44.9%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

1,824 out of 4,063.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ in work

52.9%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

2,151 out of 4,063.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ not working because of long-term illness or disability

3.3%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

135 out of 4,063.

Source and method →

People aged 16+ with no qualifications

19.3%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

Residents aged 16 and over

786 out of 4,064.

Source and method →

Homes rented privately

14%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All households

294 out of 2,163.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ retired

32.3%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

1,314 out of 4,063.

Source and method →

Homes rented from a council or housing association

16%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All households

340 out of 2,163.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ unemployed

2.2%

21 March 2021 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly. Unemployed residents as a share of all residents aged 16+; this is not the unemployment rate among economically active people.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

88 out of 4,063.

Source and method →

Crime and safety

Police-recorded locations for Peascliffe & Ridgeway ward. Locations are approximate; these are not all crimes or a measure of personal risk.

216 mapped crimes

September 2025 to August 2026. Compared with 221 in the previous 12 months. Anti-social behaviour is counted separately.

Mapped crime over time

September 2024 to August 2026

Peascliffe & Ridgeway ward · mapped crimes

Reviewed figures: September 2024 to August 2026. This reviewed record covers fewer than 30 years, so the chart opens on all of it.

Shown on this chart: 12 mapped crimes in September 2024; 15 mapped crimes in August 2026. These are recorded counts; check the coverage notes before comparing periods.

The line joins consecutive published observations.

Monthly crime and anti-social behaviour
Recorded locations by month · Peascliffe & Ridgeway
MonthMapped crimeAnti-social behaviour
September 2024123
October 2024245
November 2024244
December 2024190
January 2025145
February 2025162
March 2025184
April 20252212
May 20252015
June 20251610
July 20251715
August 20251910
September 2025173
October 2025113
November 2025213
December 2025213
January 2026196
February 2026111
March 2026122
April 2026183
May 20262410
June 20262311
July 2026248
August 2026158
Crime categories in the latest complete year
September 2025 to August 2026 · Peascliffe & Ridgeway
CategoryMapped crimes
violent crime89
other theft30
vehicle crime22
criminal damage arson20
shoplifting16
other crime13
public order12
burglary11
drugs2
possession of weapons1
What these numbers include

Approximate published locations, not every crime or personal risk.

Anti-social behaviour is separate. Transport police and unusable locations excluded.

An empty ward count means no mapped rows in the complete required force files; it does not prove that no crime occurred.

These are retrieved mapped records, not a guarantee of complete crime reporting. Approximate locations and unmapped incidents limit comparisons.

Publication history: Lincolnshire Police: Crime data not provided for May 2026. The force will provide a data refresh as soon as possible. Later update: Lincolnshire Police: Crime data refresh for May 2026.

Missing ward-months invalidate totals and changes. Busy centres attract visitors, so residential population is not a measure of the number of people exposed.

Police data and method →

What could improve local safety →

Projects and proposed responses

A nearby project is not proof of a benefit to the whole ward. Only source-supported ward links are attached here.

No project boundary has been verified against this ward. See projects and their stated locations →

Proposed responses across South Kesteven →