49 sites in both the most deprived and the poorest-environment 30%
Bottom 30% nationally for overall deprivation and environmental quality
49 sites in both the most deprived and the poorest-environment 30%
49 sites sit in the bottom 30% of England on both overall deprivation (IMD) and environmental quality.
What we measured
The definition is locked so the count can’t drift: IoD2025 decile 3 or lower and Index of Multiple Environmental Deprivation (IMED) decile 3 or lower, on the canonical cohort. That gives 49 of 652 sites (7.5%). In the v6e update of 30 October 2026, IMED was sampled at each site’s exact stored point instead of a point snapped to a 100 m grid, and the count moved from 47 to 49.
What it doesn’t show
A larger health burden. Of the 49, 36 (73.5%) are above the England average for at least one of the seven conditions that pass the age-standardised deprivation test. Among the other 603 sites it is 87.4% (Fisher p = 0.015). Dual-burden sites sit below the rest, not above. Earlier figures above 90% were computed on a misjoined health block and are withdrawn.
The thesis calls these “Triple Jeopardy” sites because it counts being the site of an active planning contest as a third condition; the count here covers the first two, so we call them dual-burden sites. This is a descriptive count of sites facing two burdens at once. It is not evidence that the burdens add up to a worse outcome; it shows that they co-occur.
Revised 12 November 2026: “Income deprivation” corrected to overall deprivation (IMD). “Triple Jeopardy” is now “dual-burden sites”.
Evidence type: Direct count. Source: Manuscript ch. 10.1–10.1a. No claim in this series is causal.