Village · 40 residents
Good · better than 6 in 10 villages
Check Local Score out of 100 · 60 is typical for the country
Each arc is a topic, coloured by its score
Map outline: Official built-up area
Fawley scores 65/100 overall, which the scorecard rates as good — 60 is typical for the country.
It stands out for safety (78) and environment (74).
Scores come from official data on safety, schools, transport, prices, health, food & drink and the local environment, for Fawley in South East, each measured against the national average.
Fawley is the kind of place where the housing stock does the talking — detached and semi-detached homes on quiet lanes, freehold almost without exception, and a population so small that you notice a car you don't recognise. This isn't a village built around a high street; it's built around space, and the people it attracts are already comfortable, older, and not in a hurry to leave.
The numbers behind that impression are stark. A median age of 52 tells you this isn't a first-rung community, and the income figures back it up — Fawley sits at the very top decile nationally for income, even though its broader deprivation score is more middling, mid-table rather than exceptional. Housing reflects that wealth more than the wider index does: a median sale price of £810,000 is roughly 80% above the county figure for Buckinghamshire itself, and recent sales sit in the property market's top percentile nationally. What moves here is mostly semi-detached and detached family homes, sold outright, rarely new-build — this is inherited or long-held property, not a development pipeline. On schooling, Frieth Church of England Combined and Ibstone CofE Primary are the names in the area, both small village primaries under fifty or so pupils each; there isn't an Ofsted rating listed for either in this data, so take the area's overall strong schools grade as the steer rather than a specific badge. Transport is thin by design — a single recorded stop rather than a station cluster — so this reads as a driving village, not a commuter-belt one, whatever the decent transport grade suggests about road links.
Green space is modest in raw terms — under four hectares across two named areas — but with a population this small, it stretches a long way per head, and the environment grade here is about as high as they come. Day-to-day life won't revolve around a restaurant strip or a nightlife scene; there's no substantial food or drink cluster in the data, and what social life exists will be built around the village itself rather than an evening out. Healthcare and general wellbeing read solidly rather than exceptionally, consistent with an older, settled population rather than one straining local services. Safety is where the picture gets interesting: the headline grade is as strong as the environment score, and the recorded crime trend is flat, but the raw comparison to the surrounding authority shows a crime rate wildly above the county average — a signal almost certainly distorted by the area's tiny population base rather than genuine danger, since a handful of incidents move the percentage enormously when there are only a few dozen residents. Violence and sexual offences top the local breakdown, but in absolute terms the counts are small enough that a village this size shouldn't read them as a pattern of unrest.
This suits someone who already knows they want quiet, has the means for a large freehold home, and doesn't need a train platform or a restaurant scene close by. It won't suit a family without a car, or anyone weighing up commuter rail links first — those simply aren't part of Fawley's offer. What you're paying the premium for is space, privacy, and a settled, older neighbourhood, not convenience.
Data last updated: 19 October 2026
Pick another area to line them up side by side — the verdict, both Check Local Scores, and what actually separates them.