Crime and safety: Elmbridge

The rate is recorded offences divided by the population, multiplied by 1,000. Where the source rounds its population figure, we retain its published rate rather than recalculate it from that rounded figure. This counts offences, not the percentage of residents who were victims.

These figures match the source area for this period. That does not establish a comparable history for today’s council boundaries.

Only where the offence definitions, recording practices and area boundaries are comparable. Changes in reporting, police recording and the types of crime matter too. We do not join incompatible series or invent missing years.

Only the latest independently checked observation is displayed. A comparable long-run crime-and-population trend has not been established.

• 2002/03: Series starts after April 2002 recording-standard introduction; not comparable to pre-2002 records.
• 2013/14: Offence grouping revision; source back-series retained. Recording practice changes also affect comparisons.
• 2017/18: Burglary classification changed; broad total retained but detailed groups need review.
• 2023/24: Burglary subcategories and recording-rule changes require interpretation review.

A comparable 30-year crime-and-population trend has not been established for this area.

For example, if offences rose by 10% while population rose by 20%, offences per resident would fall by about 8%. This is an illustration, not a finding about this area.

People commuting or visiting can also affect offences recorded in a place. The resident population is a useful common denominator, but does not count everyone present.