Prevent and Cure - Autism Speaks Style

Aims and Objectives

The Aims and Objectives of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, United Kingdom are:

To advance and promote the welfare of Autistic people.

To advance the education of the general public, statutory and charitable bodies, of the needs and rights of Autistic people.

To promote the engagement of Autistic people in the planning and delivery of services for Autistic people.

To monitor and evaluate the provision of statutory and charitable services to Autistic people.

To develop Self-Advocacy skills through the provision of training and support to Autistic people.

The provision of education, training and employment opportunities for Autistic people.

ASAN UK - The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network
182-190 Newmarket Road,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.
CB5 8HT.

01480 889 456
+44 14 80 88 94 56

admin@asanuk.tk
www.asanuk.tk

Taking Action Against "I am Autism" video

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Taking Action Against "I am Autism" video

ASAN is planning further action against Autism Speaks in response to its appalling "I am Autism" video. The following letter to our community from ASAN President Ari Ne'eman details some ways in which you can get involved.

ASAN is planning further action

Hello,

As many of you are aware, Autism Speaks sunk to a new low yesterday - even for them! The "I am Autism" campaign repeats the same tired old lies as the NYU Child Study Center's Ransom Notes ads, which our community successfully stopped in 2007, and goes even further, presenting Autistic people as useless burdens on society, on our families and on the world at large. “I am autism. I have no interest in right or wrong. I will plot to rob you of your children and your dreams….And if you’re happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails. Your money will fall into my hands, and I will bankrupt you for my own self-gain,” says the video campaign. Full text is available here.

Autism Speaks sunk to a new low yesterday

As we did in response to the "Ransom Notes" ads, we are preparing a joint letter from the disability community in response to these horrific statements, which we hope to have available early next week. If you are connected to an organization that might be interested in signing on to such a letter, please e-mail info@autisticadvocacy.org immediately.

in response to these horrific statements

In addition, we are encouraging people to act immediately by joining ASAN in writing singer Bruce Springsteen, scheduled to participate in an Autism Speaks fundraiser in November, to end his newfound association with this organization that devalues our lives and speaks about us without us. You can contact Springsteen's publicist at mlaverty@shorefire.com or by phone at 718-552-7171.

to end his newfound association with this organization

Finally, as we mentioned in our initial press release this morning, ASAN Activists and allies are preparing to confront Autism Speaks fundraising in their own communities. If you would be willing to organize a protest in your community, whether you are a self advocate, family member or other ally, please e-mail us at info@autisticadvocacy.org. There has never been a more important time for our community to assert our voice.

are preparing to confront Autism Speaks

Thank you and, as always,

Nothing About Us, Without Us!

Regards,

Ari Ne'eman
President
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
http://www.autisticadvocacy.org
info@autisticadvocacy.org
732.763.5530

Autistic Community Condemns Autism Speaks’ Campaign

Autistic Community Condemns Autism Speaks’ “I am Autism” Campaign

“We are the true voices of Autism,” say Autistic adults

Campaign spreads stigma, prejudice and inaccurate information

ASAN vows protest of upcoming Autism Speaks fundraisers

Washington, DC (September 23rd, 2009) - The autism community reacted in horror today to Autism Speaks’ new “I am Autism” campaign, presenting Autistic people as kidnap victims and burdens on their family members and communities.

presenting Autistic people as kidnap victims

“I am autism. I have no interest in right or wrong. I will plot to rob you of your children and your dreams….And if you’re happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails. Your money will fall into my hands, and I will bankrupt you for my own self-gain,” says the “I am Autism” video, released yesterday and created by Academy Award-nominated director Alfonso Cuarón and Grammy-nominated songwriter/producer Billy Mann.

 

 created by Academy Award-nominated director

“This is the latest in a series of unethical fundraising strategies adopted by Autism Speaks,” said Ari Ne’eman, an adult on the autism spectrum and President of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), “This type of fear mongering hurts Autistic people, by raising fear and not contributing in the slightest to accurate understanding of the needs of Autistic adults and children.” ASAN’s Columbus, Ohio chapter has already made arrangements to protest Autism Speaks’ upcoming local fundraising walk and other ASAN chapters will be making similar arrangements shortly, said Ne’eman.

 unethical fundraising strategies

In addition to relying on fear and pity mongering to raise funds, the Autism Speaks video repeats frequently referenced claims of higher than average divorce rates amongst parents of Autistic children. However, a 2008 study conducted by HarrisInteractive for Easter Seals in cooperation with the Autism Society of America found divorce rates for parents of Autistic children lower than those for families with no children with disabilities. The video also relies heavily on the idea of rapidly increasing autism rates. Another new study, released the same day as the video, by the British Government’s National Health Service found that autism rates among adults are the same as amongst children, indicating that the popular “epidemic” claim of rapidly increasing autism incidence is likely false.

“This video doesn’t represent me or my child”

“This video doesn’t represent me or my child,” said Dana Commandatore, a parent of an Autistic child living in Los Angeles, California. “Whatever the challenges that autism may bring, my son deserves better than being presented as a burden on society. Autism Speaks’ misrepresentation makes my life and the life of my child more difficult.”

parents' embarrassment ... more important than autistic kids' pain

“Autism Speaks seems to think that parents' embarrassment at their kids' meltdowns is more important than autistic kids' pain,” writes Sarah, an Autistic blogger at the blog Cat in a Dog’s World, “Autistic people deserve better than what Autism Speaks has to offer.”

Autistic people deserve better

The new video is reminiscent of the December 2007 NYU Child Study Center “Ransom Notes” campaign, which consisted of faux ransom notes claiming to be from an anthropomorphized disability which had kidnapped a child. Those ads were withdrawn after two and a half weeks, due to widespread outcry from self-advocates, parents and professionals and the condemnation of twenty-two national disability rights organizations, led by the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. The Ransom Notes controversy was reported on by The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Good Morning America, The Washington Post and other major media outlets. ASAN announced plans to work with the cross-disability community on a similar response to Autism Speaks’ campaign.

widespread outcry from self-advocates

“The voices of real autistic people, and of families who do not subscribe to the presentation of their family members as something sinister and criminal, clearly do not matter to Autism Speaks,” said Paula Durbin-Westby, an adult on the autism spectrum in Virginia, who serves on the board of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. “Our community is furious about Autism Speaks’ continued exploitation and will be taking action.”

Our community is furious about Autism Speaks

Selected initial responses to Autism Speaks’ “I am Autism” campaign from bloggers in the Autism community follow:

Club 166

“The above video takes up where the Ransom Campaign ended, and goes on from there. Not content just to dehumanize autistic individuals, the Autism Speaks video goes on to paint a picture of horror using the most vivid imagery it can find-your marriage will fail, you will go broke, you will never be able to function in society at all, etc…

content just to dehumanize autistic individuals

Two years ago the NYU Child Study Center claimed ignorance of the way that autistic (and other disabled individuals) felt. The response at that time was heard throughout the country, even in major national media. I wonder what excuse Autism Speaks can possibly come up with this time.”

to degrade, pity and marginalize

Turner and Kowalski (self-advocate):

“I am Autism Speaks

I will steal your voice and make sure you can never speak for yourself.

I will steal your parents’ money and spend it on a residence on Park Avenue.

I will use demeaning language to degrade, pity and marginalize you.

I have declared war on you.”

vilified in this way with an assumption of impunity

Emily

“This is horrific. I cannot believe that these people thought it was OK to demonize a developmental disorder in this way, behaving as though autism were something separate from the people who have it, like a wart or a blight or a boil that should be burned off or lanced and drained before it infects someone else or destroys your marriage, rather than what it really is, a differential neural construct that is just as much a part of the people who have it as their eye color.

Is there any other developmental difference or genetic disorder that could be vilified in this way with an assumption of impunity? Dyslexia? Schizophrenia? Tourette's? Depression? Chromosomal disorders? Doubt it.”

Autistic people deserve better than what Autism Speaks has to offer

Sarah

“Autism Speaks seems to think that parents' embarrassment at their kids' meltdowns is more important than autistic kids' pain. They're wrong in that, and they're also wrong to suggest that donating money to Autism Speaks and trying to find a "cure" is the only way to solve this problem.

Because while Autism Speaks-funded scientists play with genes in their laboratories, real autistic people are living our lives and will continue to suffer serious anxiety in many public places. Instead of writing another check to Autism Speaks, I suggest actually trying to figure out why an individual autistic person may be experiencing these difficulties.

And taking steps on both a personal and societal level to ensure that public places are more accommodating of autistic people.

Autistic people deserve better than what Autism Speaks has to offer.”

ASAN's President Profiled in Newsweek

 

 Ari Ne'eman

It's spring in Washington, and Ari Ne'e-man, with his navy suit and leather brief-case on wheels, is in between his usual flurry of meetings. Ne'eman is a master networker, a guy you'd think was born in a campaign office and bred in the halls of the Capitol.

He's fluent in policy-speak and interacts seamlessly with high-level officials (he's just had lunch with the acting vice chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and inquisitive reporters alike. He's formal but sociable and has a well-timed sense of humor. He also has a problem with velvet.

I knew this about Ne'eman—he'd mentioned it when we first started talking more than a year ago—but now, in a D.C. coffee shop, he gets into the sensory details. His father used to drive a car that had fuzzy velvet-like cushioning, and it made Ne'eman crazy to sit in it. "I'd wince because I'd think about how it would feel to get that under your fingernails," he says. I think I see him shudder at the memory.

Ari Ne'eman is 21 years old and has Asperger syndrome, a high-functioning diag-nosis on the wide-ranging autism spectrum. Ne'eman's velvet aversion is triggered somewhere deep in his brain, a brain that he happens to relish. He doesn't want anybody to mess with or, God forbid, cure his Asperger's. It's who he is, who he's always been. It's why he's had ob-sessive interests since toddlerhood.

At 2½, he saw a dinosaur skeleton at New York's American Museum of Natural History and announced, "That's a pterodactyl." From there he fixated on baseball, reciting players' names and stats ad nauseam, whether or not anyone was listening—a behavior experts call perseveration. Later it was constitutional law.

His friend Ben DeMarzo remembers driving with Ne'eman and two other classmates one high-school weekend. DeMarzo and the others wanted to listen to music—the Beatles were a favorite—but Ne'eman had other plans. "Ari made us listen to Supreme Court oral arguments. It was brutal," DeMarzo tells me. He was outnumbered—how'd he win? I ask. DeMarzo laughs. "Ari always wins," he says.

He certainly puts up a fight. Ne'eman is officially studying political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, but he also runs the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, a nonprofit he founded in 2006, the year after he graduated from high school. The task he has taken on is daunting and controversial: he wants to change the way the world views autism.

Autism is not a medical mystery that needs solving, he argues. It's a disability, yes, but it's also a different way of being, and "neurodiversity" should be accepted by society. Autistic people (he prefers this wording to "people with autism," a term many parents use, because he considers the condition intrinsic to a person's makeup) must be accommodated in the classroom and workplace and helped to live independently as adults.

He is pushing to make this happen for everyone on the spectrum. They should also be listened to. "We're having a nation-al conversation about autism without the voices of people who should be at the center of that conversation," he says.

From http://www.newsweek.com/id/197813

No Myths Public Service Announcement

Mission Statement:

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network seeks to advance the principles of the disability rights movement in the world of autism.

Drawing on the principles of the cross-disability community on issues such as inclusive education, community living supports and others, ASAN seeks to organize the community of Autistic adults and youth to have our voices heard in the national conversation about us.

In addition, ASAN seeks to advance the idea of neurological diversity, putting forward the concept that the goal of autism advocacy should not be a world without Autistic people.

Instead, it should be a world in which Autistic people enjoy the same access, rights and opportunities as all other citizens. Working in fields such as public policy, media representation, research and systems change, ASAN hopes to empower Autistic people across the world to take control of their own lives and the future of our common community.

Nothing About Us, Without Us!

The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) is a non-profit organization run by and for autistic people. ASAN's supporters include autistic adults and youth, those with other distinct neurological types and neurotypical family members, professionals, educators and friends.

ASAN was created to provide support and services to individuals on the autism spectrum while working to change public perception and combat misinformation by educating communities about persons on the autism spectrum.

Our activities include public policy advocacy, community engagement to encourage inclusion and respect for neurodiversity, quality of life oriented research and the development of autistic cultural activities and other opportunities for autistic people to engage with others on the spectrum.

Nothing About Us, Without Us!

Don't Mourn For Us by Jim Sinclair

[This article was published in the Autism Network International newsletter, Our Voice, Volume 1, Number 3, 1993. It is an outline of the presentation Jim gave at the 1993 International Conference on Autism in Toronto, and is addressed primarily to parents.

Parents often report that learning their child is autistic was the most traumatic thing that ever happened to them. Non-autistic people see autism as a great tragedy, and parents experience continuing disappointment and grief at all stages of the child's and family's life cycle.

But this grief does not stem from the child's autism in itself. It is grief over the loss of the normal child the parents had hoped and expected to have. Parents' attitudes and expectations, and the discrepancies between what parents expect of children at a particular age and their own child's actual development, cause more stress and anguish than the practical complexities of life with an autistic person.

Some amount of grief is natural as parents adjust to the fact that an event and a relationship they've been looking forward to isn't going to materialize. But this grief over a fantasized normal child needs to be separated from the parents' perceptions of the child they do have: the autistic child who needs the support of adult caretakers and who can form very meaningful relationships with those caretakers if given the opportunity. Continuing focus on the child's autism as a source of grief is damaging for both the parents and the child, and precludes the development of an accepting and authentic relationship between them. For their own sake and for the sake of their children, I urge parents to make radical changes in their perceptions of what autism means.

I invite you to look at our autism, and look at your grief, from our perspective:

Autism is not an appendage

Autism isn't something a person has, or a "shell" that a person is trapped inside. There's no normal child hidden behind the autism. Autism is a way of being. It is pervasive; it colors every experience, every sensation, perception, thought, emotion, and encounter, every aspect of existence. It is not possible to separate the autism from the person--and if it were possible, the person you'd have left would not be the same person you started with.

This is important, so take a moment to consider it: Autism is a way of being. It is not possible to separate the person from the autism.

Therefore, when parents say, I wish my child did not have autism,

what they're really saying is, I wish the autistic child I have did not exist, and I had a different (non-autistic) child instead.

Read that again. This is what we hear when you mourn over our existence. This is what we hear when you pray for a cure. This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces.

Autism is not an impenetrable wall

You try to relate to your autistic child, and the child doesn't respond. He doesn't see you; you can't reach her; there's no getting through. That's the hardest thing to deal with, isn't it? The only thing is, it isn't true.

Look at it again: You try to relate as parent to child, using your own understanding of normal children, your own feelings about parenthood, your own experiences and intuitions about relationships. And the child doesn't respond in any way you can recognize as being part of that system.

That does not mean the child is incapable of relating at all. It only means you're assuming a shared system, a shared understanding of signals and meanings, that the child in fact does not share. It's as if you tried to have an intimate conversation with someone who has no comprehension of your language. Of course the person won't understand what you're talking about, won't respond in the way you expect, and may well find the whole interaction confusing and unpleasant.

It takes more work to communicate with someone whose native language isn't the same as yours. And autism goes deeper than language and culture; autistic people are "foreigners" in any society. You're going to have to give up your assumptions about shared meanings. You're going to have to learn to back up to levels more basic than you've probably thought about before, to translate, and to check to make sure your translations are understood. You're going to have to give up the certainty that comes of being on your own familiar territory, of knowing you're in charge, and let your child teach you a little of her language, guide you a little way into his world.

And the outcome, if you succeed, still will not be a normal parent-child relationship. Your autistic child may learn to talk, may attend regular classes in school, may go to college, drive a car, live independently, have a career--but will never relate to you as other children relate to their parents. Or your autistic child may never speak, may graduate from a self-contained special education classroom to a sheltered activity program or a residential facility, may need lifelong full-time care and supervision--but is not completely beyond your reach. The ways we relate are different. Push for the things your expectations tell you are normal, and you'll find frustration, disappointment, resentment, maybe even rage and hatred. Approach respectfully, without preconceptions, and with openness to learning new things, and you'll find a world you could never have imagined.

Yes, that takes more work than relating to a non-autistic person. But it can be done--unless non-autistic people are far more limited than we are in their capacity to relate. We spend our entire lives doing it. Each of us who does learn to talk to you, each of us who manages to function at all in your society, each of us who manages to reach out and make a connection with you, is operating in alien territory, making contact with alien beings. We spend our entire lives doing this. And then you tell us that we can't relate.

Autism is not death

Granted, autism isn't what most parents expect or look forward to when they anticipate the arrival of a child. What they expect is a child who will be like them, who will share their world and relate to them without requiring intensive on-the-job training in alien contact. Even if their child has some disability other than autism, parents expect to be able to relate to that child on the terms that seem normal to them; and in most cases, even allowing for the limitations of various disabilities, it is possible to form the kind of bond the parents had been looking forward to.

But not when the child is autistic. Much of the grieving parents do is over the non-occurrence of the expected relationship with an expected normal child. This grief is very real, and it needs to be expected and worked through so people can get on with their lives-- but it has nothing to do with autism.

What it comes down to is that you expected something that was tremendously important to you, and you looked forward to it with great joy and excitement, and maybe for a while you thought you actually had it--and then, perhaps gradually, perhaps abruptly, you had to recognize that the thing you looked forward to hasn't happened. It isn't going to happen. No matter how many other, normal children you have, nothing will change the fact that this time, the child you waited and hoped and planned and dreamed for didn't arrive.

This is the same thing that parents experience when a child is stillborn, or when they have their baby to hold for a short time, only to have it die in infancy. It isn't about autism, it's about shattered expectations. I suggest that the best place to address these issues is not in organizations devoted to autism, but in parental bereavement counseling and support groups. In those settings parents learn to come to terms with their loss--not to forget about it, but to let it be in the past, where the grief doesn't hit them in the face every waking moment of their lives. They learn to accept that their child is gone, forever, and won't be coming back. Most importantly, they learn not to take out their grief for the lost child on their surviving children. This is of critical importance when one of those surviving children arrived at the time the child being mourned for died.

You didn't lose a child to autism. You lost a child because the child you waited for never came into existence. That isn't the fault of the autistic child who does exist, and it shouldn't be our burden. We need and deserve families who can see us and value us for ourselves, not families whose vision of us is obscured by the ghosts of children who never lived. Grieve if you must, for your own lost dreams. But don't mourn for us. We are alive. We are real. And we're here waiting for you.

This is what I think autism societies should be about: not mourning for what never was, but exploration of what is. We need you. We need your help and your understanding. Your world is not very open to us, and we won't make it without your strong support. Yes, there is tragedy that comes with autism: not because of what we are, but because of the things that happen to us. Be sad about that, if you want to be sad about something. Better than being sad about it, though, get mad about it--and then do something about it. The tragedy is not that we're here, but that your world has no place for us to be. How can it be otherwise, as long as our own parents are still grieving over having brought us into the world?

Take a look at your autistic child sometime, and take a moment to tell yourself who that child is not. Think to yourself: "This is not my child that I expected and planned for. This is not the child I waited for through all those months of pregnancy and all those hours of labor. This is not the child I made all those plans to share all those experiences with. That child never came. This is not that child." Then go do whatever grieving you have to do--away from the autistic child--and start learning to let go.

After you've started that letting go, come back and look at your autistic child again, and say to yourself: "This is not my child that I expected and planned for. This is an alien child who landed in my life by accident. I don't know who this child is or what it will become. But I know it's a child, stranded in an alien world, without parents of its own kind to care for it. It needs someone to care for it, to teach it, to interpret and to advocate for it. And because this alien child happened to drop into my life, that job is mine if I want it."

If that prospect excites you, then come join us, in strength and determination, in hope and in joy.

The adventure of a lifetime is ahead of you.

Jim Sinclair.

Baron Cohen: Prenatal Screening for Autism

Response to the Guardian's Article 12 January 2009

Our research was not about prenatal screening for autism...

We merely aimed to understand what causes differences in autistic traits

Your front-page article on 12 January was given the headline "New research brings autism screening closer to reality" and the strapline "Call for ethics debate as tests in the womb could allow termination of pregnancies". It showed a photo of a foetus, which was given the caption, "The discovery of a high level of testosterone in prenatal tests is an indicator of autism." And inside the paper a double-page spread was devoted to the details of the study, and given the headline "Disorder linked to high levels of testosterone in the womb".

emails from hundreds of worried parents

All four of these statements are inaccurate. The new research was not about autism screening; the new research has not discovered that a high level of testosterone in prenatal tests is an indicator of autism; autism spectrum disorder has not been linked to high levels of testosterone in the womb; and tests (of autism) in the womb do not allow termination of pregnancies.

nasty and sinister example of eugenics

To be fair to the reporter, Sarah Boseley, the content of her articles was mostly correct. But the headlines and photo captions have led to emails from hundreds of worried parents of children with autism erroneously believing that our research is being conducted with a view to wanting to terminate children with autism in the womb - a nasty and sinister example of eugenics that my co-authors and I oppose.

was not about prenatal screening for autism

The Guardian was reporting on our new study in the British Journal of Psychology that found a correlation between levels of foetal testosterone (FT) and the number of autistic traits a child shows at the age of eight. The study was not about prenatal screening for autism, and indeed did not even test children with autism.

Autistic traits are also normal

What it did was to test 235 typically developing children, measuring their FT (we all have some) and later measuring their autistic traits. A - it is just a matter of how many of these you have. Children with autism have a high number of autistic traits, but our 235 children were all typically developing children. The aim of the study was simply to understand the basic mechanisms causing individual differences in autistic traits in an otherwise typical sample.

understand the basic mechanisms

Your article covered two very different issues: our new research, which aims to study the causes of individual differences in children; and prenatal screening for autism. The two should have been kept distinct. Indeed, a prenatal screening study of autism would have needed an entirely different design.

the causes of individual differences in children

Such a study would have had to look at autism, which ours did not; and it would have had to look at issues to do with how sensitive the test was to detect autism, which kind of autism, how specific it was, or whether it also picked up other outcomes.

I am not in favour

For the record, on prenatal screening, I believe that if there was a test for autism (and there is none yet), while some parents may exercise their legal right to opt for a termination, I am not in favour of discriminating against a foetus purely because it might develop the condition.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen is director of the Autism Research Centre, Cambridge University.

Sitemap

http://asanuk.blogspot.com/
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/asans-president-profiled-in-newsweek.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/no-myths-public-service-announcement.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-is-autism.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/baron-cohen-prenatal-screening-for.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/dont-mourn-for-us-by-jim-sinclair.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/cambridgeshire-autism-links.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/07/autscape.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/population-age-groups-unformatted.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/cambridgeshire-demographics-unformatted.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/local-autism-contacts.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/nas-launches-new-strategy.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/nas-cambridge-branch-committee-meeting.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/development-worker-for-adults-with.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00


http://asanuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/asan-uk-in-cambridgeshire.html
2009-09-10T21:15:42+00:00

/home/harry/Trash-0/NAS%20Launches%20New%20Strategy.rtf

NAS announces major new strategy

Mark Lever, chief executive of the NAS, has announced proposals for a major

new strategy for the organisation.

He explained: “We are at a pivotal moment for autism services and support in

the UK. Awareness of autism has never been higher and in recent years we

have made great strides in campaigning for better recognition and support for

those with the condition.

“It is crucial that we build on the momentum we now have. Ultimately we want

to see quality services and support, and positive outcomes, for every

individual affected by autism - and we still have a long way to go to make this

a reality.

“We are committed to working in partnership as we move forward and we

would welcome discussion on our plans. Crucially, we want to ensure that

every element of what we do is informed by the voice of people with autism

and their carers and families.”

The new strategy will be underpinned by a major new fundraising drive to

support new and existing activities. It is built around three key objectives.

Providing pioneering services

We believe that providing services for people with autism must remain central

to what the NAS does. We want to build on our existing wealth of expertise to

develop services that are exemplars and a basis for future innovation.

Building a networked autism community

We are looking to build a national network of branches, members, partners

and professionals. We want to share experiences, listen and respond to

people’s concerns and give the autism community a real voice. We will

support this network to lobby and campaign for change in services and

support at a national and local level.

Establishing a Centre for Autism

This will be both a physical centre and a virtual hub at the heart of a

networked autism community. The autism centre will build capacity and

awareness throughout the autism sector by providing information, advice,

guidance and training for professionals, parents and people with autism and

their supporters. It will be also be a focus for the development of professional

practice.

The new strategy will involve some internal restructuring of the organization

and some job roles will change. This is currently the subject of ongoing

internal discussion. Under the new proposals the roles of the NAS regional

directors would change substantially as the NAS would put into place new

national leadership roles in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

These changes are intended to enable us to build up our campaigning activity

in the devolved nations and maximize our impact and the support we can offer

to local groups. We remain absolutely committed to providing support across

the UK through our regional presence.

Development Worker for Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Job description

Job title: Development Worker for Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Reports to: Cambridgeshire Multi Agency Autism Spectrum Disorders Consortium

through a partnership with Red2Green and the National Autistic Society

Location: Based at Red2Green in Swaffham Bulbeck, and working throughout

Cambridgeshire

Hours: 0.6 post (22.5 hours per week)

Salary: £22,862 (pro rata)

Initially funded for two years by Cambridgeshire County Council

1. Background

Many adults on the Autistic Spectrum, particularly those at the more able end of the

spectrum, do not receive appropriate support services because they do not meet the strict

eligibility criteria to qualify for learning disability or mental health services. In addition,

those that do often find that provision is inappropriate due to lack of expertise/awareness

on the part of service providers.

2. Key purpose of the post

To champion the cause and bring about positive change in outcomes for people who are

on the Autistic Spectrum. This includes focus on care and support, housing, transport,

goods and services, access to decision making processes, personal relationships,

education, training and employment opportunities for people and their carers.

Working with adults on the Autistic Spectrum and their carers to identify best practice and

highlight gaps in provision. They will lead work with commissioners to ensure that

appropriate services are set up to meet the needs of adults with AS/ASD many of whom

do not meet current eligibility criteria for services.

3. Principal accountabilities

To map and document existing resources across the County and work with partners,

especially third sector organisations, to identify and take forward opportunities for shared

developments, thereby maximising potential outcomes

4. Partnership working

• To identify adults/young adults on the Autistic Spectrum.

Job description, page 1 of 3

• To identify their needs, focusing particularly on those who do not have a diagnosis

of learning disability or mental health problem, and to determine whether they are

being met.

• Where there are gaps in provision, to make recommendations to local authorities

and service providers across the range of provision (health, education, social

services, employment etc) for the ways in which these needs can be met.

• Make recommendations as to how organisations pathways and protocols could be

improved to better meet the needs of people on the Autistic Spectrum.

This will include:

• Identifying providers of community care assessments for adults with AS/ASD,

independent of a diagnosis of a learning disability/mental health problem.

• Working with partners to establish a clear pathway for access to the appropriate

support services.

• Ensuring (and/or identifying) that there is expertise within Cambridgeshire or within

a reasonable travel distance, for obtaining a diagnosis of AS/ASD for adults.

• To ensure adequate and ongoing training in matters related to ASD issues in adults

is available to all service providers.

• The balance of work within the post is likely to be 75% work with service providers,

25% work with clients, establishing the broad principles of service provision for this

client group. Due to time constraints within this post, it will not be possible to

provide advocacy for individuals.

• Recording keeping and reporting – monthly reports, client and service provider files,

final report.

5. Participation and consultation

The construction and maintenance of consultation and participation structures to

strengthen representation of people who have ASD and their carers in service planning

and evaluation.

6. Funding applications

To research new funding opportunities and work with partners to put together bids for

grant funding. The post-holder may be responsible for holding budgets arising from

successful bidding.

7. Diversity

Promote diversity within all partner organisations and ensure discrimination is challenged.

8. Reporting

The Development Worker will report on a day-to-day basis to staff at Red2Green.

They would attend quarterly Steering Group meetings where they will report on their

findings and make recommendations for improvements/changes.

Job description, page 2 of 3

10. Monitoring and measures of success

Regular reporting is an essential part of the project and the final report, delivered at the

last Steering Group meeting of the project will provide pointers to further work needed.

Quarterly reports must be submitted to Steering Group meeting.

30 July 2009

Job description, page 3 of 3

/home/harry/AsanUK/Local%20Autism%20Contacts.doc

Local Autism Contacts

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge (E-mail: sb205@cam.ac.uk)

Colin Olfield - Acting Area Manager Cambridge City and South, Learning Disability Partbership Cambridgeshire County Council, also Lead Person on Autism for the Cambridgeshire County Council, Block 7 Ida Darwin, Fulbourn, Cambridge CB21 5EE, (E-mail: Colin.Oldfield@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)

Jean Clark - Service Development and Commissioning Manager, Cambridgeshire County Council, Learning Disability Partnership, also member of the Autism Consortium, Box CC1311 Castle Court, Shire Hall, Cambridge CB3 0AP (E-mail: Jean.Clark@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)

Claire Bruin –Director of Adult Support Services, CC 1307 Shire Hall Castle Hill Cambridge CB3 0AP, (E-mail: Claire.Bruin@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)

Rod Craig – Executive Director of Community and Adult Services, Cambridgeshire County Council, Shire Hall Castle Hill Cambridge CB3 0AP (E-mail: Rod.Craig@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)

Roy Pegram, County Councillor, Cabinet Member, Lead on Health and Wellbeing, Cambridgeshire County Council, Shire Hall Cambridge CB3 0AP (E-mail: Roy.Pegram@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)

Gordon Jeyes, Executive Director of Children and Young People’s Services, SS1001 Shire Hall Cambridge CB3 0AP (E-mail: Gordon.Jeyes@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)

Richard Holland, Commissioner within Children and Young People Services (E-mail: Richard.Holland@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)

Craig Dearden-Phillips, MBE –Founder and CEO of Speaking Up, 1a Fortescue Road, Cambridge CB4 2JS (E-mail: Craig@speakingup.org or craig.dearden81@btinternet.com)

Mr. David Howarth MP for Cambridge, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA (E-mail: howarth.casework@gmail.com; tel 01223 312148)

Joanna Hastwell, Asperger syndrome project officer, Disability Resource Centre, University of Cambridge, (E-mail: jlh89@admin.cam.ac.uk; tel 01223 332301)

Ellen Roberts, Peer Education Project Officer, Fusion, Learning, Involvement and Positive Partnerships (Flipp), (Email: jump-in@flipp.org.uk; tel 01223 566 656, 07504 130887)

Melanie Roberts (?Monaghan?), Chief Executive, Centre 33, (Email: melanie@centre33.org.uk; tel 01223 316488)

Mark Phippen, Head of Cambridge University's counselling service, (Email: mp222@cam.ac.uk; tel 01223 332865)

Pippa May, Manager – Lifecraft, (Email: info@lifecraft.org.uk; tel 01223 566957)

Neil Perry, Chief Executive Officer, Romsey Mill, (Email: neil.perry@romseymill.org; tel 01223 213162

Ruth Woods, Aspire Coordinator, Romsey Mill, (Email: ruth.woods@romseymill.org; 01223 213162)

Richard Holland, Development and Commissioning Manager, Aiming High, (Email: richard.holland@cambridgeshire.gov.uk; tel 07901 511912)

Lenja Bell, Coordinator, VoiCes, (Email: lenja@young-lives.org.uk; tel 07852 451138)

Lynn Powell, Project Manager, Pinpoint, (Email: lynn@pinpoint-cambs.org.uk; tel 0751 741 9761)

Joan Adamson, (SCIP Coordinator), Disabled Children's Database, (Email: SCIP@cambridgeshire.gov.uk; 01480 375515)

Carol McCarthy, Headteacher, Castle School, (Email:office@castle.cambs.sch.uk; tel 01223 442400)

Lyndsey Stone, Headteacher, Gretton School, (Email: info@grettonschool.com; tel 07545 601763)

Ruth Loshak, Coordinator, Red Balloon, (Email: ruth.loshak@national.redballoonlearner.co.uk; tel 01603 622288)

Susan Owen, Red2Green, (Email: Susan.owen@red2green.org; tel 01223 811662

Reboot, Computer supplies and ASC Employer, (Email: reboot@afl.org.uk; tel 01223 365917)

Cambridge Community Radio, (Email: newsdesk@209radio.co.uk; tel 01223 – 488418)

Cambridgeshire Mencap, (Email: rozz@cambridgeshiremencap.co.uk; tel 01223 883130)

Crossroads, Social care providers, (Email: enquiries@crossroads-cambridge.org.uk; tel 01223 415600)

Cambridgeshire county council members of Cabinet and their portfolios

Councillor Jill Tuck

Leader of the Council

5 Addison Road

Wimblington

March

Cambs

PE15 0QT

Councillor Martin Curtis

Cabinet Member for Children

31 Eastrea Road

Whittlesey

Cambs

PE7 1SG

martin.curtis@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Councillor David Harty

Cabinet Member for Learning

10 Sambar Close

Eaton Socon

St Neots

CAMBS

PE19 8QG

david.harty@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Councillor Fred Yeulett

Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing

24 Chandlers Way

March

Cambs

PE15 9LX

fred.yeulett@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Councillor Sir Peter Brown

Cabinet Member for Communities

39 Hartford Road

Huntingdon

Cambs

PE29 3RF

peter.brown@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Councillor Roy Pegram

Cabinet Member for Growth, Infrastructure and Strategic Planning

18 Norfolk Road

Wyton-on-the-Hill

Huntingdon

Cambs

PE28 2EF

Councillor Tony Orgee

Cabinet Member for Economy and the Environment

18 Norfolk Road

Wyton-on-the-Hill

Huntingdon

Cambs

PE28 2EF

Councillor John Reynolds

Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance

4 Hollytrees

Bar Hill

Cambridge

CB23 8SF

Councillor Steve Criswell

Cabinet Member for Customer Service and Transformation

23 The Bank

Somersham

Huntingdon

Cambs

PE28 3DJ

Addenbrooke’s Child Development Centre, 01223 216 662

Brookside Family Consultation Clinic, 01223 746001

Autism Services Development Officer (t.b.c.)

Robin Wallach

Brookdale Care

Population Age Groups (unformatted)

POPULATION AGE GROUP ESTIMATES – MID-2007

E.  S.  City   Fenland  Huntingdonshire  Cambridgeshire

Age groups

0-4      5,800 5,000 4,900 9,200 8,200 33,100

5-10     6,100 5,700 6,500 12,100 10,600 41,000

11-15    5,100 4,500 6,000 11,000 8,700 35,300

16-19     7,600 3,700 4,100 7,800 6,600 29,800

20-24    19,200 3,900 4,700 9,000 7,200 44,000

25-39    28,600 14,700 16,800 31,100 26,700 117,900

40-64    29,000 27,400 30,800 58,500 50,300 196,000

65-74    6,700 6,700 9,100 13,000 11,600 47,100

75+     7,100 6,300 8,500 10,300 10,500 42,700

Total 115,200 77,900 91,300 162,000 140,400 586,800

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding

Cambridgeshire Demographics (unformatted)

INTRODUCTION

The information contained within this booklet forms part of the regular analysis of demographic and related changes carried out by Cambridgeshire County Council’s Research Group to help the planning of local authority and other services.

This booklet provides the following information:

• Estimates of the total population of parishes, city wards, rural wards and districts within

Cambridgeshire for mid-years 1991, 2001, and 2007;

• Estimates of the total population of settlements contained within, or divided between,

Cambridgeshire parishes, for mid-2007;

• Nationally produced population estimates for Local Authority Districts for mid-2006;

• Age group breakdowns of the population by Local Authority District for mid-2007;

• Estimates of the number of dwellings in parishes, city wards, rural wards and districts for mid-

years 1991, 2001, and 2007.

The information contained in this report is also available on the County Council’s website at:

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/community/population

Users of this report are strongly encouraged to read the 'Notes for Users' section. In

particular, users are reminded that year-on-year variations in population and dwelling

estimates, particularly for smaller parishes and settlements, may not reflect real changes

but rather be the result of technical adjustments, rounding effects or random variations in

the coverage of administrative sources such as electoral registers.

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF POPULATION

Table 1: Summary of Cambridgeshire County Council population estimates by district

Mid-2001 % change

Mid-2007

population population 2001-2007

District

Cambridge City 109,900 115,200 4.8%

East Cambridgeshire 70,900 77,900 9.9%

Fenland 83,700 91,300 9.1%

Huntingdonshire 157,200 162,000 3.1%

South Cambridgeshire 130,500 140,500 7.7%

County 552,200 586,900 6.3%

NB.

Following the creation of Peterborough Unitary Authority Area in April 1998, Peterborough no longer forms a part of the administrative area of Cambridgeshire County. Therefore, population and dwelling stock estimates for Peterborough are not included in this publication but are available in a separate document.

Population Size

Since 2001 the population of Cambridgeshire has increased by 6.3% to 586,900. The largest

percentage increase has been in East Cambridgeshire where the population has increased by

9.9% to 77,900 since 2001. Huntingdonshire has had the smallest percentage change since 2001

at only 3.1%.

Cambridgeshire's settlement pattern is dominated by the city of Cambridge, which accounts for

19.6% of the County's population and 34.4% of the population in all parishes with more than 5,000 residents. Most settlements are small, only 19 of Cambridgeshire’s 238 parishes (including Cambridge) have populations of over 5,000 and only 8 parishes have more than 10,000 people.

Nevertheless, 57% of Cambridgeshire's population live in parishes with more than 5,000 people.

Table 2

CITIES / PARISHES WITH POPULATIONS OF 5,000 OR MORE, MID-2007

Mid 2007 Mid 2007

City/Parish City/Parish

Population Population

Cambridge City 115,200 Ramsey 8,570

St Neots 26,220 Yaxley 8,490

Wisbech 21,610 Littleport 7,940

March 21,260 Sawston 7,140

Huntingdon 20,260 Godmanchester 6,140

Ely 17,960 Cottenham 6,100

Whittlesey 16,030 Burwell 6,070

St Ives 15,920 Sawtry 5,550

Chatteris 9,700 Brampton 4,990

Soham 9,440

3

NOTES FOR USERS

1) Total population estimates

Definition: The total population figures are estimates of the resident population. The definition of

the resident population used for our mid year estimates is the same as that used in the 2001

Census as all students (including school boarders) are counted as resident at their term time

address. The population estimates include persons living in communal establishments as well as

those in private households.

The population estimates are only as reliable as the sources and methods used to produce them.

Certain parishes and wards, particularly those with large numbers of armed forces (marked AF on

the tables) or students, are more difficult to estimate in terms of population size and figures are

also likely to fluctuate more.

Method: The population estimate is rolled forward one year at a time, taking the change in

population from one year to the next and adding it to the last estimate. The sources used to

compile these annual change figures cover virtually the whole population age range: electoral

registers for the adult population (including European electors from 1995 onwards); school rolls for

the school aged population and health service statistics on births. Additional sources are used to

monitor groups for which coverage is otherwise incomplete or uncertain. These include our own

surveys for the population associated with local armed forces bases, higher education

establishments, independent schools and other institutions such as nursing and residential homes

and prisons.

Reliability of Sources: There are a number of problems associated with the compilation of the

electoral register that affect its reliability for producing population estimates. At intervals there is a

tidying up process whereby the names of people who have died or moved away are removed from

the electoral register and attempts are made to increase the level of registration of 17 year olds

(“attainers”) and other sub-groups of the population. Changes also occur in the general practice of

canvassing for the electoral roll. Consequently, changes in a particular area may occur in the

number registered to vote that appear inconsistent with other indicators such as the number of

new housing completions.

As a general rule, the longer the period over which population changes are analysed, and the

larger the settlement, the more reliable the results are likely to be. Particular care should be taken

in using the figures for the following types of areas:

Areas with large numbers of armed forces and their families - the electoral register is a poor

indicator of changes in numbers of service personnel and their families living in an area. Low

registration levels reflect high turnover among those entitled to vote. In addition, American service

personnel and their families are not entitled to vote so changes at the USAF bases are not

recorded on the electoral register. An annual survey of armed forces attempts to monitor the

changes by direct contact with bases. The information that the bases provide is used to adjust the

estimates where it is clear that our usual sources give a poor indication of change. Unfortunately,

this source is itself often incomplete, particularly with regard to families of armed forces and those

living in accommodation off the base.

Areas with large numbers of students - experience suggests that many students, especially

those living in privately rented accommodation, are not entered on the electoral register. Students

from overseas may not be eligible for registration. Figures from educational establishments help

in recording changes in the student population not fully covered by electoral roll change.

Mid-year estimates from 2001 were rebased in the light of the 2001 census results. This has led

to some discontinuity between figures; comparisons with intermediate years’ estimates should be

made with some caution and small changes in populations should not be scrutinised too heavily.

2) Population estimates for settlements

Definition: There is no official list of settlements or officially agreed settlement boundaries – those

calculated for Cambridgeshire have been defined as being reasonably distinct from at least one

other built up area within a parish, and having a population of at least 50. Settlements do not tend

to include people living outside the built up area. Where such a population exists, and is greater

than 50, it is stated as being the “remaining population”. Where it is less than 50 it is attributed to

the population of the largest settlement in the parish.

Source: Settlements have been defined using registration units from the electoral register in

conjunction with detailed local maps. Population estimates for settlements have been produced

by apportioning the parish population on the basis of electoral distribution. Our annual survey of

armed forces populations helps us allocate numbers of those not adequately covered by the

electoral register.

Reliability: The methodology used for calculating settlements has been revised following the 2001

Census and comparison with previous estimates in not advisable.

3) Age group estimates

Definition: The population definition used is the same as that for the estimates of total population.

The inclusion of students living at their term time address has a particular impact on numbers in

the 16-19 and 20-24 age groups.

Source: The age structures of the district populations are derived from the Research Group's

population forecasting model. The base population at 2001 was aged forward using information

on actual numbers of births and deaths. Net migration and other changes were estimated using

information from the 2001 Census and other sources.

Reliability: The age group estimates should be most accurate at 2001 using information based on

the 2001 Census. Figures since 2001 relating to births and deaths should be associated with a

high level of accuracy while information on the numbers and age structure of migrants is likely to

have a higher degree of error attached.

4) Dwelling stock estimates

Definition: Estimates of dwelling stock relate to the number of self contained residential units

whereby, if there is more than one separate area of living accommodation within a property, each

is counted separately. Vacant properties, second homes and holiday homes are included, as are

non-permanent dwellings, such as caravans and houseboats (where these are used as dwellings).

Method: The 2001 Census provided a count for the number of dwellings by parish and urban ward

but, as it is likely that the census undercounted the number of dwellings by a small amount, this

figure was adjusted to provide a mid year estimate for 2001. Estimates from 2001 onwards have

been calculated using housing completions data (supplied by the land monitoring section of the

County Council) to record change since the Census.

Reliability of sources: Due to the changes in methodology adopted in recent years, comparisons

with data from previous years should be undertaken with some measure of caution.

5) Rounding of the figures

Figures for parishes and wards have all been rounded to the nearest 10 people and may not add

to district totals. This reflects the level of accuracy of the results.

6) Further information

For further information on the estimates please contact the Research Group on Cambridge

(01223) 715300 or via email: research.group@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

5

6 Mid-2007 population

estimates for parishes

and urban wards

7

8CAMBRIDGE CITY

% change area

Wards* 1991 2001 2007 2001-07 hectares

Abbey - 8,470 8,920 395

5.3%

Arbury - 8,890 9,070 149

2.0%

Castle - 7,320 7,640 341

4.4%

Cherry Hinton - 8,380 8,500 368

1.4%

Coleridge - 7,500 8,170 193

8.9%

East Chesterton - 7,540 8,210 261

8.9%

King's Hedges - 8,380 7,860 157

-6.2%

Market - 7,590 8,390 169

10.5%

Newnham - 7,900 8,390 445

6.2%

Petersfield - 7,020 7,640 105

8.8%

Queen Edith's - 8,150 8,490 452

4.2%

Romsey - 8,060 8,580 149

6.5%

Trumpington - 6,620 7,020 733

6.0%

West Chesterton - 8,100 8,310 153

2.6%

Cambridge City 106,000 109,900 115,200 4.8% 4,070

CAMBRIDGE CITY NOTES

*These are new Cambridge wards resulting from the City of Cambridge (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Population estimates for 1991 on the 2002 ward boundaries are not currently available and estimates published for years prior to 2001 are not

comparable.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

9

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change area

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07 hectares

Ashley 510 570 610 896

7.0%

Bottisham (*) 1,770 1,920 2,010 1,150

4.7%

Brinkley 380 370 360 523

-2.7%

Burrough Green 320 370 320 917

-13.5%

Burwell (*)(**) 4,660 5,650 6,070 2,554

7.4%

Cheveley 1,720 1,850 1,950 1,031

5.4%

Chippenham 400 510 570 1,730

11.8%

Coveney 380 410 410 1,287

0.0%

Downham 2,210 2,330 2,530 4,439

8.6%

Dullingham 620 700 730 1,365

4.3%

Ely (*) 11,730 14,630 17,960 5,903

22.8%

Fordham (**) 2,220 2,540 2,750 1,665

8.3%

Haddenham (*) 2,770 3,130 3,410 3,592

8.9%

Isleham 1,960 2,270 2,370 2,108

4.4%

Kennett 290 350 360 580

2.9%

Kirtling 330 360 360 1,261

0.0%

Littleport 6,460 7,280 7,940 7,371

9.1%

Lode (*) 840 860 890 1,264

3.5%

Mepal (*) 640 890 900 743

1.1%

Reach 300 350 370 458

5.7%

Snailwell 170 220 220 800

0.0%

Soham 7,770 8,820 9,440 5,245

7.0%

Stetchworth (*) 540 670 750 1,168

11.9%

Stretham 1,480 1,630 1,630 1,624

0.0%

Sutton (*) 3,090 3,260 3,660 2,846

12.3%

Swaffham Bulbeck 770 830 850 1,658

2.4%

Swaffham Prior 770 740 720 1,974

-2.7%

Thetford (*) 470 670 680 541

1.5%

Wentworth 190 150 180 552

20.0%

Westley Waterless (*) 120 150 160 464

6.7%

Wicken 700 810 870 1,595

7.4%

Wilburton (*) 1,050 1,190 1,280 1,709

7.6%

Witcham 400 420 480 1,059

14.3%

Witchford 1,440 2,270 2,370 935

4.4%

Woodditton (**) 1,720 1,730 1,770 1,922

2.3%

East Cambridgeshire District 61,200 70,900 77,900 9.9% 64,941

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE NOTES

(*) Minor boundary changes were all a result of the East Cambridgeshire (Parishes) Order 1993.

(**) Minor boundary changes were a result of the Cambridgeshire & Suffolk (County Boundaries) Order 1992.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

10

FENLAND DISTRICT

% change area

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07 hectares

Benwick 670 860 950 1,316

10.5%

Chatteris 7,350 8,840 9,700 6,099

9.7%

Christchurch 720 720 830 2,808

15.3%

Doddington 1,630 2,090 2,160 2,846

3.3%

Elm (*) 3,320 3,300 3,800 5,853

15.2%

Gorefield * - 1,070 1,080 1,121

0.9%

Leverington * 3,870 2,920 3,300 671

13.0%

Manea 1,200 1,580 1,940 2,694

22.8%

March (*) 17,020 19,080 21,260 7,786

11.4%

Newton 640 660 640 1,494

-3.0%

Parson Drove 970 1,030 1,350 2,088

31.1%

Tydd St Giles 890 1,000 1,180 1,834

18.0%

Whittlesey 14,010 15,620 16,030 8,995

2.6%

Wimblington 1,490 1,660 2,090 3,126

25.9%

Wisbech 19,050 20,230 21,610 1,867

6.8%

Wisbech St Mary 2,720 3,030 3,370 3,963

11.2%

Fenland District 75,500 83,700 91,300 9.1% 54,547

FENLAND DISTRICT NOTES

*The parish of Gorefield was established in April 1994 from part of the former parish of Leverington.

(*) Minor boundary changes were a result of the Elm, March and Outwell (Areas) Order 1991.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

11

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT

% change area

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07 hectares

Abbots Ripton 250 310 300 1,691

-3.2%

Abbotsley 380 430 410 694

-4.7%

Alconbury 1,360 1,670 1,760 1,531

5.4%

Alconbury Weston 750 790 800 699

1.3%

Alwalton ~ 310 340 320 48

-5.9%

Barham & Woolley 50 50 60 764

20.0%

Bluntisham 1,620 1,980 2,040 963

3.0%

Brampton (AF) 4,750 5,040 4,990 1,435

-1.0%

Brington & Molesworth (AF) 370 410 440 1,145

7.3%

Broughton 210 240 250 956

4.2%

Buckden 2,480 2,520 2,680 1,256

6.3%

Buckworth 100 120 120 816

0.0%

Bury (AF) 1,760 1,720 1,870 593

8.7%

Bythorn & Keyston 250 270 300 1,715

11.1%

Catworth 300 370 340 1,248

-8.1%

Chesterton ~ 150 150 140 552

-6.7%

Colne * 780 790 810 692

2.5%

Conington 220 220 250 1,279

13.6%

Covington 80 90 100 523

11.1%

Denton & Caldecote 60 80 80 769

0.0%

Diddington 90 90 90 523

0.0%

Earith 1,640 1,680 1,640 430

-2.4%

Easton 140 160 190 546

18.8%

Ellington 610 620 630 1,088

1.6%

Elton 640 730 710 1,520

-2.7%

Eynesbury Hardwicke (*) 810 1,170 2,200 1,037

88.0%

Farcet ~ 1,230 1,650 1,730 1,831

4.8%

Fenstanton 2,670 2,870 3,140 1,041

9.4%

Folksworth & Washingley 780 910 870 886

-4.4%

Glatton 230 300 350 878

16.7%

Godmanchester 5,430 6,010 6,140 1,976

2.2%

Grafham * 460 590 650 725

10.2%

Great Gidding 310 300 310 940

3.3%

Great Gransden 850 970 1,020 1,370

5.2%

Great Paxton 840 1,020 1,020 567

0.0%

Great Staughton * 850 840 830 2,049

-1.2%

Haddon ~ 40 50 50 504

0.0%

Hail Weston (*) 570 590 630 799

6.8%

Hamerton 100 90 90 881

0.0%

Hemingford Abbots 600 580 600 976

3.4%

Hemingford Grey 2,400 2,530 2,560 746

1.2%

Hilton 950 980 990 534

1.0%

Holme 460 610 620 1,746

1.6%

Holywell-cum-Needingworth 2,500 2,540 2,510 1,173

-1.2%

Houghton & Wyton (AF) 4,020 2,570 2,930 1,528

14.0%

Huntingdon 15,740 20,120 20,260 904

0.7%

12

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT

% change area

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07 hectares

Kimbolton and Stonely 1,330 1,430 1,400 2,075

-2.1%

Kings Ripton 150 170 190 549

11.8%

Leighton 210 220 200 1,261

-9.1%

Little Gidding 20 30 30 293

0.0%

Little Paxton (*) 3,190 3,010 3,040 458

1.0%

Morborne ~ 30 40 40 502

0.0%

Offord Cluny 440 500 490 430

-2.0%

Offord Darcy 770 750 710 754

-5.3%

Old Hurst 230 250 260 433

4.0%

Old Weston 170 190 210 826

10.5%

Perry * 1,220 1,150 1,170 588

1.7%

Pidley-cum-Fenton 340 370 380 1,492

2.7%

Ramsey 7,140 8,060 8,570 6,418

6.3%

Sawtry 5,030 5,580 5,550 2,530

-0.5%

Sibson-cum-Stibbington 470 440 470 622

6.8%

Somersham * 3,650 3,810 3,810 1,831

0.0%

Southoe & Midloe 470 410 420 958

2.4%

Spaldwick 300 610 600 624

-1.6%

St Ives 15,500 16,030 15,920 940

-0.7%

St Neots (*) 25,420 26,400 26,220 1,031

-0.7%

St Neots Rural 100 50 70 1,088

40.0%

Steeple Gidding 30 30 40 445

33.3%

Stilton 2,210 2,430 2,500 658

2.9%

Stow Longa 110 140 150 339

7.1%

Tetworth 40 50 50 596

0.0%

The Stukeleys (AF) 2,610 2,050 2,630 1,671

28.3%

Tilbrook 270 260 250 676

-3.8%

Toseland 80 80 100 541

25.0%

Upton & Coppingford 180 210 220 824

4.8%

Upwood & The Raveleys * (AF) 1,420 1,220 1,180 1,880

-3.3%

Warboys (*) 3,220 3,870 3,890 3,416

0.5%

Waresley 230 230 240 818

4.3%

Water Newton 80 80 90 357

12.5%

Winwick 100 100 110 692

10.0%

Wistow (*) 500 530 540 974

1.9%

Wood Walton 220 240 240 1,997

0.0%

Woodhurst 310 330 380 736

15.2%

Yaxley 7,230 7,420 8,490 1,325

14.4%

Yelling 270 300 320 743

6.7%

Huntingdonshire District 146,500 157,200 162,000 3.1% 90,952

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT NOTES

~ Alwalton, Chesterton, Farcet, Haddon and Morborne were affected by boundary changes associated with the creation of Peterborough Unitary

Authority in April 1999. Approximately 360 people were transferred as a result from Stanground, Peterborough, to Farcet.

* Major boundary changes were mostly a result of the Huntingdon (Parishes) Order 1992, transferring approximately 80 people

from Bury to Upwood and the Raveleys and 90 people from Colne to Somersham. The parish of Perry was created involving the

transfer of approximately 140 from Grafham and 600 from Great Staughton.

(*) Minor boundary changes were a result of the Huntingdon (Parishes) Order 1992.

(AF) Parishes with a large armed forces population which generally accounts for large changes.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

13

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change area

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07 hectares

Abington Pigotts 150 140 150 497

7.1%

Arrington 370 390 430 549

10.3%

Babraham (*) 260 270 250 971

-7.4%

Balsham 1,310 1,650 1,620 1,831

-1.8%

Bar Hill 4,490 4,250 4,100 145

-3.5%

Barrington (*) 970 910 920 914

1.1%

Bartlow (*) 90 100 100 218

0.0%

Barton (*) 810 800 800 723

0.0%

Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth (AF) 3,710 4,020 3,870 1,536

-3.7%

Bourn * 1,000 1,770 920 1,348

-

Boxworth 190 230 240 1,049

4.3%

Caldecote 590 800 1,640 407

105.0%

Cambourne * - - 5,650 412

-

Carlton 200 170 160 974

-5.9%

Castle Camps (*) 600 600 670 1,256

11.7%

Caxton * 330 480 510 802

-

Childerley 30 20 20 433

0.0%

Comberton 2,280 2,200 2,360 785

7.3%

Conington (S) 140 120 140 614

16.7%

Coton (*) 710 780 760 396

-2.6%

Cottenham 4,500 5,670 6,100 2,914

7.6%

Croxton 120 160 160 772

0.0%

Croydon 190 220 230 1,103

4.5%

Dry Drayton 570 580 610 829

5.2%

Duxford 1,840 1,840 1,920 1,311

4.3%

Elsworth 610 660 660 1,546

0.0%

Eltisley 350 420 450 793

7.1%

Fen Ditton (*) 670 750 760 599

1.3%

Fen Drayton 780 830 900 601

8.4%

Fowlmere (*) 1,170 1,190 1,200 963

0.8%

Foxton 1,120 1,160 1,260 710

8.6%

Fulbourn 4,710 4,720 4,500 2,124

-4.7%

Gamlingay 3,380 3,550 3,620 1,300

2.0%

715

Girton 3,570 3,760 4,020 6.9%

Grantchester (*) 570 550 590 487

7.3%

Graveley 240 220 220 637

0.0%

Great Abington 860 860 860 640

0.0%

Great Eversden 200 230 230 565

0.0%

Great Shelford (*) 3,920 3,960 3,980 834

0.5%

Great Wilbraham 610 640 650 1,178

1.6%

Great & Little Chishill (*) 620 610 590 1,295

-3.3%

Guilden Morden 870 930 1,000 1,049

7.5%

Hardwick 2,460 2,640 2,700 580

2.3%

Harlton 280 300 300 508

0.0%

Harston 1,600 1,700 1,680 692

-1.2%

Haslingfield (*) 1,370 1,550 1,630 1,191

5.2%

Hatley 230 210 230 958

9.5%

Hauxton 700 690 690 207

0.0%

Heydon (*) 190 210 240 862

14.3%

Hildersham (*) 210 200 200 616

0.0%

Hinxton (*) 320 320 310 632

-3.1%

Histon 4,240 4,380 4,400 710

0.5%

Horningsea 330 330 350 663

6.1%

Horseheath 420 470 460 777

-2.1%

Ickleton 630 660 680 1,077

3.0%

Impington 2,970 4,040 4,140 736

2.5%

14

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change area

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07 hectares

Kingston 230 210 230 769

9.5%

Knapwell 110 90 90 500

0.0%

Landbeach (*) 780 830 830 932

0.0%

Linton (*) 3,960 4,320 4,400 1,585

1.9%

Litlington 810 820 860 865

4.9%

Little Abington 480 530 500 518

-5.7%

Little Eversden 500 560 580 319

3.6%

Little Gransden 230 260 290 774

11.5%

Little Shelford (*) 810 800 810 526

1.3%

Little Wilbraham 370 400 420 800

5.0%

Lolworth 140 140 170 445

21.4%

Longstanton (AF) 2,340 1,710 2,310 1,121

35.1%

Longstowe 210 190 230 622

21.1%

Madingley (*) 220 210 210 842

0.0%

Melbourn (*) 4,080 4,430 4,570 1,761

3.2%

Meldreth (*) 1,740 1,650 1,700 976

3.0%

Milton (*) 4,100 4,290 4,340 799

1.2%

Newton 340 400 390 420

-2.5%

Oakington & Westwick (*) 1,300 1,300 1,390 883

6.9%

Orwell (*)~ 990 1,080 1,080 847

0.0%

Over 2,420 2,750 2,780 1,507

1.1%

Pampisford (*) 340 340 340 648

0.0%

Papworth Everard 1,280 2,020 2,530 466

25.2%

Papworth St Agnes 60 60 60 523

0.0%

Rampton 410 440 450 554

2.3%

Sawston (*) 7,180 7,170 7,140 769

-0.4%

Shepreth 710 820 830 531

1.2%

Shingay-cum-Wendy 100 100 110 725

10.0%

Shudy Camps 290 310 310 951

0.0%

Stapleford (*) 1,720 1,740 1,770 741

1.7%

Steeple Morden 1,070 970 1,030 1,549

6.2%

Stow-cum-Quy (*) 460 430 450 764

4.7%

Swavesey 1,930 2,490 2,590 1,606

4.0%

681

Tadlow 150 180 180 0.0%

Teversham 2,520 2,670 2,680 484

0.4%

Thriplow (*) 720 850 1,010 966

18.8%

Toft # 560 580 590 518

1.7%

Waterbeach (AF) 4,550 4,440 4,800 2,315

8.1%

West Wickham 370 420 470 1,184

11.9%

West Wratting 460 440 470 1,430

6.8%

Weston Colville 430 430 430 1,305

0.0%

Whaddon (AF) 520 480 480 619

0.0%

Whittlesford 1,390 1,580 1,580 793

0.0%

Willingham 3,350 3,450 3,900 1,878

13.0%

Wimpole~ 160 230 240 1,013

4.3%

South Cambridgeshire District 122,500 130,500 140,500 7.7% 89,961

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE NOTES

(*) Minor boundary changes were mostly a result of the South Cambridgeshire (Parishes) Order 1994. The parishes of Oakington

and Westwick were combined into one parish.

* The parish of Cambourne was created by the Parish of Cambourne Order 2004, transferring approximately 1060 people from Bourn parish

and 340 from Caxton parish.

(AF) Parishes with a large armed forces population which generally accounts for large changes.

~ In accordance with the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 a section of the boundary between Wimpole Parish and Orwell Parish

was changed as of approximately mid-1999. Approximately 50 electors were transferred from Wimpole to Orwell.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

15

16 Mid-2007 population

estimates for rural wards

17

18EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Bottisham 3,670 3,740 1.9%

Burwell 5,650 6,070 7.4%

Cheveley 3,780 3,960 4.8%

Downham 4,050 4,320 6.7%

Dullingham Villages 2,100 2,210 5.2%

Ely East 3,670 4,020 9.5%

Ely North 5,070 6,190 22.1%

Ely South 2,290 3,540 54.6%

Ely West 3,600 4,210 16.9%

Fordham 3,620 3,900 7.7%

Haddenham 5,550 5,960 7.4%

Isleham 2,270 2,370 4.4%

Littleport East 4,690 5,220 11.3%

Littleport West 2,590 2,720 5.0%

Soham North 3,620 4,250 17.4%

Soham South 6,010 6,060 0.8%

Stretham 3,490 3,590 2.9%

Sutton 3,260 3,660 12.3%

The Swaffhams 1,920 1,940 1.0%

East Cambridgeshire District 70,900 77,900 9.9%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of East Cambridgeshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Population estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

19

FENLAND DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Benwick, Coates & Eastrea 4,010 4,260 6.2%

Chatteris Birch 1,990 2,420 21.6%

Chatteris Slade Lode 2,250 2,280 1.3%

Chatteris The Mills 2,460 2,520 2.4%

Chatteris Wenneye 2,140 2,480 15.9%

Doddington 2,090 2,160 3.3%

Elm 4,020 4,630 15.2%

Manea 1,580 1,940 22.8%

March East 6,630 7,140 7.7%

March North 6,390 6,990 9.4%

March West 6,060 7,130 17.7%

Parson Drove 4,060 4,720 16.3%

Roman Bank 5,650 6,200 9.7%

Whittlesey Bassenhally 1,600 1,640 2.5%

Whittlesey Delph 1,880 1,950 3.7%

Whittlesey Kingsmoor 1,740 1,700 -2.3%

Whittlesey Lattersey 2,440 2,440 0.0%

Whittlesey St Andrews 2,430 2,560 5.3%

Whittlesey St Marys 2,380 2,430 2.1%

Wimblington 1,660 2,090 25.9%

Wisbech Clarkson 2,130 2,240 5.2%

Wisbech Hill 4,270 4,610 8.0%

Wisbech Kirkgate 2,210 2,260 2.3%

Wisbech Medworth 2,120 2,400 13.2%

Wisbech Peckover 2,150 2,210 2.8%

Wisbech Staithe 2,460 2,600 5.7%

Wisbech Waterlees 4,890 5,290 8.2%

Fenland District 83,700 91,300 9.1%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of Fenland (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Population estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

20

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Alconbury and The Stukeleys 4,010 4,170 4.0%

Brampton 6,780 6,810 0.4%

Buckden 3,020 3,190 5.6%

Earith 6,200 6,190 -0.2%

Ellington 3,160 3,240 2.5%

Elton and Folksworth 2,740 2,690 -1.8%

Fenstanton 2,870 3,140 9.4%

Godmanchester 6,010 6,140 2.2%

Gransden and The Offords 4,530 4,620 2.0%

Huntingdon East 8,780 8,750 -0.3%

Huntingdon North 5,800 6,070 4.7%

Huntingdon West 6,040 6,460 7.0%

Kimbolton and Staughton 3,210 3,210 0.0%

Little Paxton 3,010 3,040 1.0%

Ramsey 8,060 8,570 6.3%

Sawtry 6,860 6,950 1.3%

Somersham 5,790 5,890 1.7%

St Ives East 7,090 6,860 -3.2%

St Ives South 6,150 6,190 0.7%

St Ives West 2,790 2,870 2.9%

St Neots Eaton Ford 6,900 6,770 -1.9%

St Neots Eaton Socon 5,560 5,320 -4.3%

St Neots Eynesbury 8,990 10,120 12.6%

St Neots Priory Park 5,970 6,020 0.8%

Stilton 3,120 3,200 2.6%

The Hemingfords 5,690 5,850 2.8%

Upwood and The Raveleys 2,910 3,140 7.9%

Warboys and Bury 6,120 6,300 2.9%

Yaxley and Farcet 9,070 10,220 12.7%

Huntingdonshire District 157,200 162,000 3.1%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of Huntingdonshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Population estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

21

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Balsham 4,490 4,590 2.2%

Bar Hill 5,200 5,120 -1.5%

Barton 2,340 2,360 0.9%

Bassingbourn 5,420 5,320 -1.8%

Bourn 2,830 7,690 171.7%

Caldecote 1,610 2,480 54.0%

Comberton 2,200 2,360 7.3%

Cottenham 7,410 7,940 7.2%

Duxford 2,500 2,600 4.0%

Fowlmere and Foxton 2,350 2,460 4.7%

Fulbourn 4,720 4,500 -4.7%

Gamlingay 4,820 5,030 4.4%

Girton 3,760 4,020 6.9%

Hardwick 2,640 2,700 2.3%

Harston and Hauxton 2,390 2,370 -0.8%

Haslingfield and The Eversdens 2,640 2,740 3.8%

Histon and Impington 8,420 8,540 1.4%

Linton 4,620 4,700 1.7%

Longstanton 1,710 2,310 35.1%

Melbourn 5,250 5,400 2.9%

Meldreth 2,470 2,530 2.4%

Milton 4,290 4,340 1.2%

Orwell and Barrington 2,220 2,240 0.9%

Papworth and Elsworth 4,000 4,600 15.0%

Sawston 7,170 7,140 -0.4%

Swavesey 2,490 2,590 4.0%

Teversham 2,670 2,680 0.4%

The Abingtons 2,320 2,260 -2.6%

The Mordens 2,220 2,360 6.3%

The Shelfords and Stapleford 6,900 6,950 0.7%

The Wilbrahams 2,550 2,630 3.1%

Waterbeach 5,270 5,630 6.8%

Whittlesford 2,430 2,590 6.6%

Willingham and Over 6,200 6,680 7.7%

South Cambridgeshire district 130,500 140,500 7.7%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of South Cambridgeshire (Electoral Changes) (Amendment) Order 2002.

Population estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

22

Mid-2007 population

estimates for settlements

23

24EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

BOTTISHAM 2,010 LITTLEPORT 7,940

Bottisham Littleport

1,970 6,970

Six Mile Bottom (pt) Blackhorse Drove

40 210

Little Ouse 70

Remaining population

CHEVELEY 1,950 690

Cheveley 1,040

Newmarket fringe (pt) 800 LODE 890

Remaining population Lode

110 770

Long Meadow 120

COVENEY 410

Coveney 240 SOHAM 9,440

Wardy Hill Soham

130 8,970

Remaining population Barway

40 120

Remaining population 350

DOWNHAM 2,530

Little Downham 1,850 SUTTON 3,660

Pymore Sutton

390 3,500

Remaining population Sutton Gault

290 80

Remaining population 80

ELY 17,960

Ely City 16,820 SWAFFHAM BULBECK 850

Chettisham Swaffham Bulbeck

170 720

Prickwillow Commercial End

460 130

Queen Adelaide 220

Stuntney 290 WESTLEY WATERLESS 160

Westley Waterless 110

Six Mile Bottom (pt)

HADDENHAM 3,410 50

Haddenham 3,020

Aldreth 270 WICKEN 870

Remaining population Wicken

120 780

Upware 90

KIRTLING 360

Kirtling 290 WOODDITTON 1,770

Upend Ditton Green

70 270

Little Ditton 60

Saxon Street 320

Newmarket fringe (pt) 1,120

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE NOTES

Settlement estimates have been rebased to reflect the 2001 Census and are not comparable with previous estimates.

(pt) Part of settlement contained within another parish.

Settlement figures may not add to parish totals due to rounding.

25

FENLAND DISTRICT

CHRISTCHURCH 830 PARSON DROVE 1,350

Christchurch Parson Drove

660 980

Euximoor Murrow (pt)

90 180

Tips End Remaining population

70 180

Remaining population 70

TYDD ST GILES 1,180

Tydd St Giles

ELM 3,800 780

Elm Foul Anchor

1,700 80

Coldham Four Gotes

180 80

Collett's Bridge Tydd Gote

100 80

Friday Bridge Remaining population

1,410 160

Ring's End 90

Remaining pop 320 WHITTLESEY 16,030

Whittlesey 12,920

Coates

GOREFIELD 1,080 1,170

Gorefield (pt) Eastrea

800 820

Remaining population Pondersbridge (pt)

280 120

Ramsey Mereside (pt) 40

Turves

LEVERINGTON 3,300 370

Leverington Remaining pop

1,880 580

Wisbech Fringe 1,200

Remaining population 220 WIMBLINGTON 2,090

Wimblington 1,870

Stonea

MARCH 21,260 80

March Remaining population

20,280 150

Westry 170

Remaining population, including prison 810 WISBECH ST MARY 3,370

Wisbech St Mary 1,470

Guyhirn

NEWTON 640 680

Newton Murrow (pt)

450 720

Fitton End Tholomas Drove

70 100

Remaining population Thorney Toll (pt)

120 70

Remaining population 320

FENLAND DISTRICT NOTES

(pt) Part of settlement contained within another parish.

Settlement estimates have been rebased to reflect the 2001 Census and are not comparable with previous estimates.

Settlement figures may not add to parish totals due to rounding.

26

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT

BRINGTON & KIMBOLTON AND STONELY 1,400

Kimbolton

MOLESWORTH (AF) 440 1,080

Brington (AF) Stonely

260 280

Molesworth Remaining population

170 50

BYTHORN & KEYSTON 300 RAMSEY 8,570

Bythorn Ramsey town

140 6,110

Keyston Ramsey Forty Foot

160 730

Ramsey Heights 450

Ramsey Mereside (pt)

EYNESBURY HARDWICKE 2,200 580

St Neots fringe Ramsey St.Mary's

2,050 660

Remaining population Pondersbridge (pt)

150 40

FENSTANTON 3,140 SIBSON-CUM-STIBBINGTON 470

Fenstanton Stibbington

2,600 180

London Road (pt) Wansford fringe

540 140

Remaining population 160

HEMINGFORD GREY 2,560

Hemingford Grey 2,120 ST NEOTS # 26,220

London Road (pt) Eaton Ford

440 6,790

Eaton Socon 5,370

Eynesbury

HOLYWELL-CUM 8,130

Priory Park

-NEEDINGWORTH 2,510 5,940

Holywell 210

Needingworth 2,300 THE STUKELEYS (AF) 2,630

Great Stukeley 790

Little Stukeley (AF)

HOUGHTON & WYTON (AF) ~ 2,930 960

Houghton & Wyton villages Hinchingbrooke Park*

1,740 880

Wyton-on-the -Hill (AF) 1,190

UPWOOD & THE RAVELEYS 1,180

Upwood 1,010

Great Raveley 80

Little Raveley 50

Remaining population 40

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT NOTES

(pt) Part of settlement contained within another parish.

(AF) Parish / settlement with a significant proportion of armed forces accommodation.

# These are the new wards within St Neots, which do not correspond exactly to previous settlement estimates.

Settlement estimates have been rebased to reflect the 2001 Census and are not comparable with previous estimates.

*Hinchingbrooke Park is divided between the parishes of The Stukeleys and Huntingdon. The part in Huntingdon has 430 population.

Settlement figures may not add to parish totals due to rounding.

27

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

BASSINGBOURN-CUM IMPINGTON 4,140

Impington

-KNEESWORTH (AF) 3,870 3,440

Bassingbourn King's Meadow

2,130 710

Kneesworth 720

Remaining population (AF) 1,020 LITTLE WILBRAHAM 420

Little Wilbraham 300

Six Mile Bottom (pt)

CALDECOTE 1,640 120

Caldecote 150

Highfields 1,500 TEVERSHAM 2,680

Teversham 770

Ch.Hinton fringe (north pt)

CASTLE CAMPS 670 1,840

Castle Camps Remaining population

540 70

Camps End 80

Remaining population 50 THRIPLOW 1,010

Thriplow 570

Heathfield (pt)

DUXFORD 1,920 440

Duxford 1,810

Whittlesford Bridge (pt) 110 WATERBEACH (AF) 4,800

Waterbeach (AF) 4,560

Chittering

FULBOURN 4,500 120

Fulbourn Remaining population

3,460 120

Ch.Hinton fringe (south pt) 940

Remaining population 110 WEST WICKHAM 470

West Wickham 360

Streetley End

GREAT & LITTLE CHISHILL 590 110

Great Chishill 560

Little Chishill / remaining population 30 WESTON COLVILLE 430

Weston Colville 140

Weston Green

HATLEY 230 300

East Hatley 150

Hatley St. George 80 WHITTLESFORD 1,580

Whittlesford 1,290

Heathfield (pt)

HORSEHEATH 460 110

Horseheath Whittlesford Bridge (pt)

340 180

Cardinals Green 130

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT NOTES

(pt) Part of settlement contained within another parish.

(AF) Parish / settlement with a significant proportion of armed forces accommodation.

Settlement estimates have been rebased to reflect the 2001 Census and are not comparable with previous estimates.

Settlement figures may not add to parish totals due to rounding.

28

SETTLEMENTS DIVIDED BETWEEN PARISHES

Settlement Population Parishes and (Districts) divided between

Cherry Hinton fringe Fulbourn, Teversham (South Cambs.)

2,780

Heathfield Thriplow, Whittlesford (South Cambs.)

550

London Road, St Ives Fenstanton, Hemingford Grey (Huntingdonshire)

980

Murrow Parson Drove, Wisbech St Mary (Fenland)

900

Newmarket fringe Cheveley, Woodditton (East Cambs.)

1,920

Pondersbridge Whittlesey, Ramsey (Fenland, Huntingdonshire)

160

Ramsey Mereside Whittlesey, Ramsey (Fenland, Huntingdonshire)

620

Six Mile Bottom Bottisham,W.Waterless,Lt.Wilbraham (East,South Cambs)

210

Whittlesford Bridge Duxford, Whittlesford (South Cambs.)

290

29

30 Population age group

estimates for

Local Authority Districts

31

32 POPULATION AGE GROUP ESTIMATES – MID-2007

East South

Cambridge City Cambridgeshire Fenland Huntingdonshire Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire

Age groups

0-4 5,800 5,000 4,900 9,200 8,200 33,100

5-10 6,100 5,700 6,500 12,100 10,600 41,000

11-15 5,100 4,500 6,000 11,000 8,700 35,300

16-19 7,600 3,700 4,100 7,800 6,600 29,800

20-24 19,200 3,900 4,700 9,000 7,200 44,000

25-39 28,600 14,700 16,800 31,100 26,700 117,900

40-64 29,000 27,400 30,800 58,500 50,300 196,000

65-74 6,700 6,700 9,100 13,000 11,600 47,100

75+ 7,100 6,300 8,500 10,300 10,500 42,700

Total 115,200 77,900 91,300 162,000 140,400 586,800

NOTES:

See “Notes for users” for further information.

Population figures may not add to totals due to rounding

Nationally produced population

estimates for Cambridgeshire

35

36Nationally produced population estimates for Cambridgeshire Mid-2006

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces annual estimates of the Country’s population by

Local Authority District. The County Council’s Research Group independently produces its own

estimates (published here), which are not controlled to the ONS figures. The main reason for

doing this is that it is possible to feed in local information on changes in armed forces, students,

school rolls etc. Consequently there will be some differences between the Research Group’s

estimates and the ONS estimates.

While the Research Group advises the use of their own estimates for most purposes, some

statutory purposes (such as Best Value Audits and the Standard Spending Assessment) require

the use of the official government figures. They are presented below for this purpose. A more

detailed breakdown of the figures (by age and sex) is available from the Research Group.

Table 2: ONS Mid-2006 population estimates compared with Research Group estimates

LA District ONS Research Group

Population Estimate 2006 Population Estimate 2006

Cambridge City 117,900 113,800

East Cambridgeshire 79,600 76,400

Fenland 90,100 89,800

Huntingdonshire 166,600 160,700

South Cambridgeshire 135,400 137,800*

Cambridgeshire 589,600 578,500

Totals may not add due to rounding

*Revised mid-2006 estimate

Differences between the ONS and Research Group population estimates arise for a number of

reasons. ONS attributes higher levels of net migration – particularly net international migration - to

Cambridgeshire than suggested by local information. Using local information on armed forces and

student change can also have an effect. At present, the major differences between the two sets of

estimates are in Cambridge City, East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire.

In the case of Cambridge City, the difference between ONS and Research Group estimates is

entirely due to ONS’ assumption that there is major net international migration into the city. In the

past, ONS has assumed significant net international migration into Cambridge whilst the Research

Group assumed no net international migration, preferring to assume - on the basis of long-term

experience of population movements in Cambridge - that the substantial international migration

flows into and out of Cambridge broadly cancel out in the longer term. Recent revisions to ONS

methodology have addressed this problem to some extent and ONS has released a revised set of

population estimates back to 2002 that assume lower net international migration into Cambridge.

Although these revisions bring the ONS estimates for Cambridge more in line with those produced

by the Research Group, they remain slightly higher. It also seems that the revisions have led to

higher estimates for other districts, notably Huntingdonshire, which are not necessarily supported

by local data.

In the case of East Cambridgeshire, the Research Group uses a lower population base for 2001,

which means each rolled forward mid-year estimate will be lower than that published by ONS.

This is because the Research Group believes that the 2001 Census over-estimated the number of

people who were not enumerated by the Census in East Cambridgeshire. As a result, too many

people were added to the raw census count during the One Number Census imputation

procedure, producing higher population totals than indicated by other sources, such as the NHS

Register. Recalculation of the census figure, assuming similar rates of under-enumeration as in

neighbouring districts, suggests that the ONS mid-2001 population estimate was 2,500 too high.

More information and advice on the differences between ONS and Research Group methodology

is available from the Research Group.

37

38 Mid-2007 dwelling stock

estimates for parishes

and urban wards

39

40CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICTS

Districts % change

1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Cambridge 41,700 44,500 47,500 6.7%

East Cambridgeshire 25,700 30,900 34,800 12.6%

Fenland 32,400 36,800 40,900 11.1%

Huntingdonshire 58,200 65,700 69,200 5.3%

South Cambridgeshire 48,300 54,200 58,800 8.5%

Cambridgeshire 206,400 232,100 251,200 8.2%

NOTES

Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

CAMBRIDGE CITY

% change

Wards 1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Abbey - 3,800 3,970 4.5%

Arbury - 4,060 4,070 0.2%

Castle - 2,260 2,350 4.0%

Cherry Hinton - 3,640 3,710 1.9%

Coleridge - 3,350 3,850 14.9%

East Chesterton - 3,390 3,910 15.3%

King's Hedges - 3,770 3,800 0.8%

Market - 1,950 1,980 1.5%

Newnham - 1,810 2,040 12.7%

Petersfield - 3,200 3,710 15.9%

Queen Edith's - 2,970 3,090 4.0%

Romsey - 3,590 3,900 8.6%

Trumpington - 2,910 3,200 10.0%

West Chesterton - 3,840 3,900 1.6%

Cambridge City 41,700 44,500 47,500 6.7%

CAMBRIDGE CITY NOTES

*These are new Cambridge wards resulting from the City of Cambridge (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Dwelling estimates for 1991 on the 2002 ward boundaries are not currently available and estimates published for years

prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

41

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Ashley 230 260 260 0.0%

Bottisham (*) 720 770 820 6.5%

Brinkley 160 160 160 0.0%

Burrough Green 140 150 160 6.7%

Burwell (*)(**) 1,980 2,430 2,650 9.1%

Cheveley 820 860 890 3.5%

Chippenham 200 240 250 4.2%

Coveney 150 160 160 0.0%

Downham 870 940 1,020 8.5%

Dullingham 260 300 310 3.3%

Ely (*) 5,040 6,850 8,590 25.4%

Fordham (**) 930 1,100 1,140 3.6%

Haddenham (*) 1,160 1,340 1,410 5.2%

Isleham 770 940 1,000 6.4%

Kennett 130 150 160 6.7%

Kirtling 140 160 160 0.0%

Littleport 2,750 3,130 3,550 13.4%

Lode (*) 360 390 390 0.0%

Mepal (*) 260 370 420 13.5%

Reach 120 140 140 0.0%

Snailwell 80 90 90 0.0%

Soham 3,240 3,830 4,400 14.9%

Stetchworth (*) 270 290 290 0.0%

Stretham 630 710 770 8.5%

Sutton (*) 1,230 1,360 1,590 16.9%

Swaffham Bulbeck 330 370 400 8.1%

Swaffham Prior 310 320 320 0.0%

Thetford (*) 170 290 290 0.0%

Wentworth 70 60 60 0.0%

Westley Waterless (*) 60 60 60 0.0%

Wicken 290 340 360 5.9%

Wilburton (*) 400 480 540 12.5%

Witcham 160 180 190 5.6%

Witchford 590 920 990 7.6%

Woodditton (**) 710 780 790 1.3%

East Cambridgeshire District 25,700 30,900 34,800 12.6%

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE NOTES

(*) Minor boundary changes were all a result of the East Cambridgeshire (Parishes) Order 1993.

(**) Minor boundary changes were a result of the Cambridgeshire & Suffolk (County Boundaries) Order 1992.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

42

FENLAND DISTRICT

% change

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Benwick 280 340 380 11.8%

Chatteris 3,250 3,970 4,520 13.9%

Christchurch 310 310 370 19.4%

Doddington 700 870 930 6.9%

Elm (*) 1,310 1,460 1,680 15.1%

Gorefield * - 420 470 11.9%

Leverington * 1,680 1,380 1,590 15.2%

Manea 530 690 860 24.6%

March (*) 7,540 8,300 9,440 13.7%

Newton 280 300 310 3.3%

Parson Drove 400 440 540 22.7%

Tydd St Giles 390 430 490 14.0%

Whittlesey 5,730 6,600 6,900 4.5%

Wimblington 670 730 970 32.9%

Wisbech 8,170 9,210 9,910 7.6%

Wisbech St Mary 1,190 1,320 1,500 13.6%

Fenland District 32,400 36,800 40,900 11.1%

FENLAND DISTRICT NOTES

*The parish of Gorefield was established in April 1994 from part of the former parish of Leverington.

(*) Minor boundary changes were a result of the Elm, March and Outwell (Areas) Order 1991.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

43

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Abbots Ripton 100 130 140 7.7%

Abbotsley 150 170 170 0.0%

Alconbury 560 650 670 3.1%

Alconbury Weston 290 300 300 0.0%

Alwalton ~ 130 130 130 0.0%

Barham & Woolley 20 30 30 0.0%

Bluntisham 620 740 740 0.0%

Brampton (AF) 1,810 2,100 2,150 2.4%

Brington & Molesworth (AF) 130 140 140 0.0%

Broughton 80 90 90 0.0%

Buckden 1,070 1,180 1,270 7.6%

Buckworth 40 50 60 20.0%

Bury (AF) 600 630 690 9.5%

Bythorn & Keyston 100 110 120 9.1%

Catworth 130 140 140 0.0%

Chesterton ~ 60 70 70 0.0%

Colne * 290 310 320 3.2%

Conington 100 100 100 0.0%

Covington 40 40 40 0.0%

Denton & Caldecote 20 20 20 0.0%

Diddington 40 40 40 0.0%

Earith 620 650 670 3.1%

Easton 50 70 70 0.0%

Ellington 230 240 240 0.0%

Elton 270 300 300 0.0%

Eynesbury Hardwicke (*) 350 460 970 110.9%

Farcet ~ 500 700 760 8.6%

Fenstanton 1,110 1,210 1,360 12.4%

Folksworth & Washingley 320 380 380 0.0%

Glatton 100 120 120 0.0%

Godmanchester * 2,400 2,640 2,740 3.8%

Grafham * 200 240 260 8.3%

Great Gidding 130 130 130 0.0%

Great Gransden 320 380 390 2.6%

Great Paxton 320 400 400 0.0%

Great Staughton * 340 350 360 2.9%

Haddon ~ 20 20 20 0.0%

Hail Weston (*) 210 230 240 4.3%

Hamerton 40 40 40 0.0%

Hemingford Abbots 280 280 280 0.0%

Hemingford Grey 1,050 1,140 1,140 0.0%

Hilton 350 390 410 5.1%

Holme 200 230 250 8.7%

Holywell-cum-Needingworth 930 1,010 1,030 2.0%

Houghton & Wyton (AF) 1,350 1,360 1,440 5.9%

Huntingdon * 6,590 8,430 8,920 5.8%

44

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Kimbolton and Stonely 580 620 620 0.0%

Kings Ripton 60 70 70 0.0%

Leighton 90 90 90 0.0%

Little Gidding 10 10 10 0.0%

Little Paxton (*) 1,210 1,230 1,330 8.1%

Morborne ~ 20 20 20 0.0%

Offord Cluny 170 210 210 0.0%

Offord Darcy 310 330 330 0.0%

Old Hurst 110 110 110 0.0%

Old Weston 70 80 90 12.5%

Perry * 310 320 320 0.0%

Pidley-cum-Fenton 130 140 160 14.3%

Ramsey 3,060 3,390 3,630 7.1%

Sawtry 2,000 2,210 2,220 0.5%

Sibson-cum-Stibbington 200 210 260 23.8%

Somersham * 1,460 1,560 1,580 1.3%

Southoe & Midloe 170 170 170 0.0%

Spaldwick 130 230 230 0.0%

St Ives 6,250 6,860 6,980 1.7%

St Neots (*) 10,120 11,200 11,480 2.5%

St Neots Rural 40 20 20 0.0%

Steeple Gidding 10 10 10 0.0%

Stilton 910 960 980 2.1%

Stow Longa 50 60 60 0.0%

Tetworth 20 20 20 0.0%

The Stukeleys (AF) 640 830 1,080 30.1%

Tilbrook 90 100 100 0.0%

Toseland 40 40 40 0.0%

Upton & Coppingford 100 110 110 0.0%

Upwood & The Raveleys * (AF) 490 500 510 2.0%

Warboys (*) 1,320 1,590 1,640 3.1%

Waresley 100 110 110 0.0%

Water Newton 30 40 40 0.0%

Winwick 40 40 40 0.0%

Wistow (*) 210 230 230 0.0%

Wood Walton 80 90 90 0.0%

Woodhurst 120 130 150 15.4%

Yaxley 2,710 3,040 3,580 17.8%

Yelling 110 130 130 0.0%

Huntingdonshire District 58,200 65,700 69,200 5.3%

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT NOTES

~ Alwalton, Chesterton, Farcet, Haddon and Morborne were affected by boundary changes associated with the creation of Peterborough Unitary

Authority in April 1999. Approximately 360 people were transferred as a result from Stanground, Peterborough, to Farcet.

* Major boundary changes were mostly a result of the Huntingdon (Parishes) Order 1992, transferring approximately 80 people

from Bury to Upwood and the Raveleys and 90 people from Colne to Somersham. The parish of Perry was created involving the

transfer of approximately 140 from Grafham and 600 from Great Staughton.

(*) Minor boundary changes were a result of the Huntingdon (Parishes) Order 1992.

(AF) Parishes with a large armed forces population which generally accounts for large changes.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

45

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Abington Pigotts 60 60 60 0.0%

Arrington 160 170 170 0.0%

Babraham (*) 120 120 120 0.0%

Balsham 530 660 660 0.0%

Bar Hill 1,780 1,780 1,780 0.0%

Barrington (*) 370 400 400 0.0%

Bartlow (*) 30 40 40 0.0%

Barton (*) 350 370 370 0.0%

Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth (AF) 1,140 1,290 1,290 0.0%

Bourn * 390 800 440 -

Boxworth 80 90 90 0.0%

Caldecote 230 320 590 84.4%

Cambourne * - - 2,630 -

Carlton 80 80 80 0.0%

Castle Camps (*) 240 260 280 7.7%

Caxton * 150 200 240 -

Childerley 10 10 10 0.0%

Comberton 880 920 960 4.3%

Conington (S) 60 60 60 0.0%

Coton (*) 310 340 340 0.0%

Cottenham 1,850 2,380 2,440 2.5%

Croxton 70 70 70 0.0%

Croydon 80 90 90 0.0%

Dry Drayton 230 250 260 4.0%

Duxford 710 740 780 5.4%

Elsworth 260 280 290 3.6%

Eltisley 150 180 180 0.0%

Fen Ditton (*) 280 330 330 0.0%

Fen Drayton 320 330 350 6.1%

Fowlmere (*) 460 480 510 6.3%

Foxton 440 460 470 2.2%

Fulbourn 1,740 1,980 1,990 0.5%

Gamlingay 1,330 1,470 1,510 2.7%

Girton 1,410 1,510 1,640 8.6%

Grantchester (*) 260 270 270 0.0%

Graveley 90 90 90 0.0%

Great Abington 320 330 340 3.0%

Great Eversden 80 100 140 40.0%

Great Shelford (*) 1,700 1,830 1,850 1.1%

Great Wilbraham 250 280 280 0.0%

Great & Little Chishill (*) 240 240 240 0.0%

Guilden Morden 330 390 390 0.0%

Hardwick 920 960 1,000 4.2%

Harlton 120 130 130 0.0%

Harston 650 680 690 1.5%

Haslingfield (*) 540 630 640 1.6%

Hatley 80 90 90 0.0%

Hauxton 290 300 300 0.0%

Heydon (*) 80 90 90 0.0%

Hildersham (*) 90 90 90 0.0%

Hinxton (*) 130 130 140 7.7%

Histon 1,740 1,840 1,870 1.6%

Horningsea 140 150 150 0.0%

Horseheath 180 190 190 0.0%

Ickleton 270 300 310 3.3%

Impington 1,190 1,580 1,700 7.6%

46

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Parishes 1991 2001 2007 2001-07

Kingston 90 100 100 0.0%

Knapwell 40 40 40 0.0%

Landbeach (*) 340 360 370 2.8%

Linton (*) 1,570 1,780 1,860 4.5%

Litlington 310 330 340 3.0%

Little Abington 220 240 240 0.0%

Little Eversden 210 220 220 0.0%

Little Gransden 100 110 120 9.1%

Little Shelford (*) 310 330 330 0.0%

Little Wilbraham 180 180 180 0.0%

Lolworth 60 60 60 0.0%

Longstanton (AF) 840 890 1,080 21.3%

Longstowe 80 80 90 12.5%

Madingley (*) 90 90 90 0.0%

Melbourn (*) 1,580 1,790 1,910 6.7%

Meldreth (*) 650 670 680 1.5%

Milton (*) 1,700 1,820 1,860 2.2%

Newton 140 170 170 0.0%

Oakington & Westwick (*) 510 540 640 18.5%

Orwell (*)~ 400 450 450 0.0%

Over 900 1,080 1,120 3.7%

Pampisford (*) 140 140 140 0.0%

Papworth Everard 550 840 1,090 29.8%

Papworth St Agnes 30 30 30 0.0%

Rampton 160 190 190 0.0%

Sawston (*) 2,660 2,880 2,960 2.8%

Shepreth 270 310 320 3.2%

Shingay-cum-Wendy 40 50 50 0.0%

Shudy Camps 110 110 110 0.0%

Stapleford (*) 700 740 740 0.0%

Steeple Morden 400 410 430 4.9%

Stow-cum-Quy (*) 180 190 190 0.0%

Swavesey 750 990 1,000 1.0%

Tadlow 60 70 70 0.0%

Teversham 1,100 1,220 1,260 3.3%

Thriplow (*) 320 380 450 18.4%

Toft # 220 220 220 0.0%

Waterbeach (AF) 1,650 1,890 1,930 2.1%

West Wickham 140 170 170 0.0%

West Wratting 180 190 190 0.0%

Weston Colville 180 180 180 0.0%

Whaddon (AF) 200 210 220 4.8%

Whittlesford 560 650 650 0.0%

Willingham 1,290 1,450 1,660 14.5%

Wimpole~ 70 100 100 0.0%

South Cambridgeshire District 48,300 54,200 58,800 8.5%

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE NOTES

(*) Minor boundary changes were mostly a result of the South Cambridgeshire (Parishes) Order 1994.

* The parish of Cambourn was created by the Parish of Cambourne Order 2004, transferring approximately 1060 people from Bourn parish

and 340 from Caxton parish.

(AF) Parishes with a large armed forces population which generally accounts for large changes.

~ In accordance with the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 a section of the boundary between Wimpole Parish and Orwell Parish

was changed as of approximately mid-1999. Approximately 50 electors were transferred from Wimpole to Orwell.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

47

Mid-2007 dwelling stock

estimates for rural wards

48

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Bottisham 1,530 1,590 3.9%

Burwell 2,430 2,650 9.1%

Cheveley 1,730 1,760 1.7%

Downham 1,650 1,790 8.5%

Dullingham Villages 920 940 2.2%

Ely East 1,830 2,050 12.0%

Ely North 2,290 2,770 21.0%

Ely South 970 1,500 54.6%

Ely West 1,760 2,270 29.0%

Fordham 1,580 1,640 3.8%

Haddenham 2,320 2,460 6.0%

Isleham 940 1,000 6.4%

Littleport East 2,040 2,240 9.8%

Littleport West 1,090 1,310 20.2%

Soham North 1,450 1,920 32.4%

Soham South 2,720 2,840 4.4%

Stretham 1,480 1,600 8.1%

Sutton 1,360 1,590 16.9%

The Swaffhams 830 860 3.6%

East Cambridgeshire District 30,900 34,800 12.6%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of East Cambridgeshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Dweling estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

49

FENLAND DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Benwick, Coates & Eastrea 1,620 1,720 6.2%

Chatteris Birch 880 1,050 19.3%

Chatteris Slade Lode 1,040 1,180 13.5%

Chatteris The Mills 1,130 1,180 4.4%

Chatteris Wenneye 920 1,110 20.7%

Doddington 870 930 6.9%

Elm 1,770 2,050 15.8%

Manea 690 860 24.6%

March East 3,080 3,430 11.4%

March North 2,540 3,000 18.1%

March West 2,680 3,010 12.3%

Parson Drove 1,760 2,040 15.9%

Roman Bank 2,530 2,860 13.0%

Whittlesey Bassenhally 700 700 0.0%

Whittlesey Delph 770 810 5.2%

Whittlesey Kingsmoor 680 670 -1.5%

Whittlesey Lattersey 1,030 1,060 2.9%

Whittlesey St Andrews 1,040 1,120 7.7%

Whittlesey St Marys 1,100 1,200 9.1%

Wimblington 730 970 32.9%

Wisbech Clarkson 960 1,030 7.3%

Wisbech Hill 2,090 2,350 12.4%

Wisbech Kirkgate 910 920 1.1%

Wisbech Medworth 1,170 1,230 5.1%

Wisbech Peckover 970 1,080 11.3%

Wisbech Staithe 1,020 1,010 -1.0%

Wisbech Waterlees 2,090 2,290 9.6%

Fenland District 36,800 40,900 11.1%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of Fenland (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Dweling estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

50

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Alconbury and The Stukeleys 1,590 1,610 1.3%

Brampton 2,660 2,730 2.6%

Buckden 1,390 1,480 6.5%

Earith 2,400 2,440 1.7%

Ellington 1,240 1,270 2.4%

Elton and Folksworth 1,170 1,220 4.3%

Fenstanton 1,210 1,360 12.4%

Godmanchester 2,640 2,740 3.8%

Gransden and The Offords 1,850 1,860 0.5%

Huntingdon East 3,800 3,960 4.2%

Huntingdon North 2,150 2,420 12.6%

Huntingdon West 2,670 2,980 11.6%

Kimbolton and Staughton 1,340 1,360 1.5%

Little Paxton 1,230 1,330 8.1%

Ramsey 3,390 3,630 7.1%

Sawtry 2,770 2,780 0.4%

Somersham 2,340 2,410 3.0%

St Ives East 2,880 2,880 0.0%

St Ives South 2,810 2,930 4.3%

St Ives West 1,170 1,170 0.0%

St Neots Eaton Ford 2,850 2,900 1.8%

St Neots Eaton Socon 2,370 2,390 0.8%

St Neots Eynesbury 3,750 4,410 17.6%

St Neots Priory Park 2,650 2,710 2.3%

Stilton 1,210 1,250 3.3%

The Hemingfords 2,540 2,640 3.9%

Upwood and The Raveleys 1,420 1,440 1.4%

Warboys and Bury 2,450 2,560 4.5%

Yaxley and Farcet 3,740 4,340 16.0%

Huntingdonshire District 65,700 69,200 5.3%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of Huntingdonshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2002.

Dweling estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

51

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE

DISTRICT

% change

Wards* 2001 2007 2001-07

Balsham 1,840 1,860 1.1%

Bar Hill 2,180 2,190 0.5%

Barton 1,070 1,070 0.0%

Bassingbourn 1,880 1,900 1.1%

Bourn 1,250 3,560 184.8%

Caldecote 650 920 41.5%

Comberton 920 960 4.3%

Cottenham 3,110 3,270 5.1%

Duxford 1,040 1,090 4.8%

Fowlmere and Foxton 940 980 4.3%

Fulbourn 1,980 1,990 0.5%

Gamlingay 2,010 2,070 3.0%

Girton 1,510 1,640 8.6%

Hardwick 960 1,000 4.2%

Harston and Hauxton 980 990 1.0%

Haslingfield and The Eversdens 1,080 1,130 4.6%

Histon and Impington 3,420 3,570 4.4%

Linton 1,910 1,990 4.2%

Longstanton 890 1,080 21.3%

Melbourn 2,120 2,240 5.7%

Meldreth 980 1,000 2.0%

Milton 1,820 1,860 2.2%

Orwell and Barrington 950 950 0.0%

Papworth and Elsworth 1,670 1,950 16.8%

Sawston 2,880 2,960 2.8%

Swavesey 990 1,000 1.0%

Teversham 1,220 1,260 3.3%

The Abingtons 960 980 2.1%

The Mordens 930 950 2.2%

The Shelfords and Stapleford 3,070 3,090 0.7%

The Wilbrahams 1,130 1,130 0.0%

Waterbeach 2,250 2,300 2.2%

Whittlesford 1,030 1,100 6.8%

9.9%

Willingham and Over 2,530 2,780

South Cambridgeshire district 54,200 58,800 8.5%

*These are new wards resulting from the District of South Cambridgeshire (Electoral Changes) (Amendment) Order 2003.

Dweling estimates published for wards in years prior to 2001 are not comparable.

Dwelling figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

52