Village · 213 residents
Fair · among the lowest-scoring 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
Ormesby St Michael scores 46/100 overall, which the scorecard rates as fair — 60 is typical for the country.
It stands out for affordability (70).
It scores lowest on transport (31).
Scores come from official data on safety, schools, transport, prices, health, food & drink and the local environment, for Ormesby St Michael in East of England, each measured against the national average.
Ormesby St Michael reads as low-rise, quiet, and thinly populated even by village standards — semi-detached and terraced houses along modest streets, nothing that feels built for passing trade. This is a place people settle into rather than discover, and the numbers behind the scene back that up: a population of 90 and a density nowhere close to the regional average tells you this is genuinely sparse, not just quiet-sounding.
Houses here sell for around £203,750, well under both the Great Yarmouth district median and the national figure, and freehold ownership runs through every single recorded sale — no leasehold complications, no new-build estates skewing the picture. The property mix leans semi-detached and terraced in even measure, with a couple of detached houses in the sample too, so a For Sale board here most often means an older, modest, fully-owned home rather than anything shiny. Against Great Yarmouth itself prices sit only marginally higher, which tells you this village isn't trading on scarcity value the way some commuter-belt places do. Ormesby Village Infant School is the named school in the area, a small community primary serving under a hundred pupils — the kind of place where your child would likely know every other family in their year, though no Ofsted rating is on record to confirm how it performs. Transport is the soft spot: the connectivity grade sits mid-pack while transport itself scores lower, consistent with a village that assumes you'll drive rather than rely on rail.
Green space per head runs a little below the regional norm, and with no named park or station in the data, this isn't a place defined by a signature beauty spot or a bustling parade of restaurants — it's a place defined by its own residential rhythm. Crime is low in absolute terms, just a handful of recorded incidents across the year, though violence and sexual offences and other theft make up the bulk of what little there is, a pattern common to small villages where one or two incidents can swing the percentages. The overall grade profile sits comfortably in the B range across safety, housing, health and schools alike — solid without being exceptional anywhere, and transport is the one category that visibly lags the rest, a mild but real caveat rather than a warning sign.
This suits someone who wants a settled, older-skewing community — median age 50, well above the national 40 — and who doesn't mind arranging their own transport. It's a harder fit if you need rail commuting or want a wide choice of schools and evening options close by; those things simply aren't part of this village's offer.
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.