Most deprived King’s Lynn and West Norfolk neighbourhoods revealed

A number of our neighbourhoods have been named among the top 10% most deprived in England.

The 2025 English Indices of Deprivation, which measure relative levels of deprivation in 33,755 small areas or neighbourhoods across the country, were released this week in an update to the 2019 index.

The stark contrast between nearby areas in West Norfolk has again been highlighted, with parts of North Lynn more deprived than 93% of neighbourhoods while South Wootton is only less deprived than 6%.

The Lynn town centre area encompassing the Tuesday Market Place, King Street and Boal Street is in the 20% least well off.

Joining it in that category, although ever so slightly worse off, is the vicinity around the bus and railway stations, Norfolk Street and Eastgate Community Primary School.

Close by, the stretch including Tower Street, St James Street, Milfleet and Greyfriars Primary School is more deprived than 92% of neighbourhoods.

Equally as deprived is the area around Valingers Road, Checker Street and Windsor Road.

In South Lynn, a large area which encompasses new-build streets such as Sandpiper Way and reaches as far as the Hardwick industrial estate has been ranked much better, only more deprived than 60% of neighbourhoods.

However, an extremely large area which includes South Lynn streets such as Burney Road and Hillen Road, before stretching all the way past Saddlebow is also worse off than 92% of patches.

In North Lynn, Turbus Road, Losinga Road and Columbia Way are in the lowest 7% - with Bergen Way, Reid Way and Lynnsport Way’s area better off overall but still more deprived than 88%.

Streets surrounding the College of West Anglia and King Edward VII Academy are only more deprived than 57%, but Gaywood areas around Oak Circle, Bagge Road and Raleigh Road are worse off than 91%.

Some parts of Fairstead are among the 80% most deprived neighbourhoods, although the top end around Churchill Park School is around the 50% mark.

Springwood High School and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital have both been included in an area which is better off than 86% of England’s neighbourhoods, as have the streets around Reffley Academy.

North Wootton also comes out well, although it is considered more deprived than South Wootton.

Elsewhere, two seafront areas of Hunstanton are more deprived than 68% and 53% respectively - with the northern part considered better off.

However, the area stretching from Park Road to Butterfield Rise in the town is significantly worse off than the coastal streets.

A large patch including Old Hunstanton and Holme next the Sea falls in the less deprived half of neighbourhoods.

Intriguingly, the Government statistics say that the affluent area around Burnham Market and Burnham Overy Staithe is more deprived than 72% of England’s neighbourhoods.

Similarly, the patch including Thornham, Brancaster, Titchwell and Brancaster Staithe is more deprived than 67% of the country.

On the other hand, the west end of Fakenham, where Fakenham Academy is located, is better off than 71%.

The opposite end of the town is nearly just as well off, although parts of the town centre range from being among the 73% most deprived to the 58% most deprived.

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, may want to think about moving to Sandringham - the area around it is among the most 65% worst off.

Granted, the data for it has been taken from a large patch going all the way from Wolferton Fen to Massingham Common.

The northern parts of Swaffham have been deemed among the country’s 80% most deprived, with the southern streets better off.

And while Downham town centre is more deprived than seven in ten English areas, the neighbourhoods around it fare better - including the vicinity of Downham Academy, which is only worse off than 36% of neighbourhoods.

Among the best-ranking places in West Norfolk is the area around RAF Marham, better off than 74%.

WHAT ARE THE RANKINGS BASED ON?

The rankings are based on seven factors - income, employment, education, health, crime, living environment, and barriers to housing and services.

These can be used to compare small areas across England, identify the most deprived small areas, explore the types of deprivation, and compare larger administrative areas.

They cannot be used to quantify how deprived a small area is, identify deprived people, or say how affluent a place is.

“People may be living in poverty if they lack the financial resources to meet their needs, whereas people can be regarded as deprived if they lack any kind of resources, not just income,” Government papers say.

“In the English Indices of Deprivation, ‘deprivation’ refers to people’s unmet needs, whereas ‘poverty’ refers to the lack of resources required to meet those needs or socially perceived necessities.”

They add that “there is no definitive threshold above which an area is described as deprived”.