Birmingham sits at 52.4814, -1.8998, and the four circles above start from there. 5, 10, 25 and 50 miles. They’re live shapes, not a picture of some. Click one and you can pull it to a different size, drop another on top of it, or shift the whole set onto the exact street corner you had in mind.
The short version. 95 separate places sit inside the 50 mi circle, worth about 7,488,702 people between them, and that’s counting only settlements GeoNames lists at 15,000 or more. The 5 mi ring alone holds 2. Nearest of the lot is Smethwick, 2.9 mi west-north-west. For catchment work that density is the whole difficulty, because almost any radius you pick swallows a dozen towns at once.
If you want one landmark to calibrate against, use Bartley Green. It’s 5.2 mi south-west of the centre, so it sits almost exactly on the inner circle. At the other end, Crewe is 48.2 mi out to the north-north-west, near enough the edge of the 50 mi ring. Everything in between scales from those two.
Read the distances as point to point. GeoNames gives every settlement one coordinate, roughly central, and these figures are the gaps between those coordinates. A sprawling suburb whose centre lands at 10 mi might well start at half that. Where the boundary actually matters, draw the circle and look at where the line crosses.
2 places inside 5 mi, 156,765 people, 79 mi² of ground.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smethwick | 2.9 mi | WNW 285° | 53,653 |
| West Bromwich | 4.7 mi | WNW 303° | 103,112 |
11 places between 5 and 10 mi, 862,239 people, 236 mi² of ground. The 10 largest are in the table; 1 smaller ones aren’t.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bartley Green | 5.2 mi | SW 232° | 22,670 |
| Halesowen | 6.7 mi | WSW 250° | 60,097 |
| Solihull | 6.8 mi | SE 133° | 126,577 |
| Sutton Coldfield | 6.8 mi | NNE 31° | 109,899 |
| Tipton | 7.8 mi | WNW 295° | 47,000 |
| Dudley | 7.8 mi | W 280° | 199,059 |
| Walsall | 8 mi | NNW 334° | 172,141 |
| Aldridge | 8.6 mi | N 355° | 26,896 |
| Brierley Hill | 9.3 mi | W 270° | 28,000 |
| Willenhall | 9.8 mi | NW 317° | 49,587 |
29 places between 10 and 25 mi, 1,917,752 people, 1,649 mi² of ground. The 12 largest are in the table; 17 smaller ones aren’t.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stourbridge | 10.4 mi | W 260° | 56,950 |
| Wolverhampton | 11.8 mi | NW 308° | 263,700 |
| Redditch | 12.2 mi | S 189° | 87,847 |
| Tamworth | 13.6 mi | NE 39° | 81,964 |
| Cannock | 15.5 mi | NNW 339° | 86,121 |
| Kidderminster | 16.1 mi | WSW 247° | 57,400 |
| Coventry | 17.1 mi | ESE 107° | 345,324 |
| Nuneaton | 18.5 mi | E 81° | 88,813 |
| Royal Leamington Spa | 21 mi | SE 130° | 50,923 |
| Stafford | 24.1 mi | NNW 338° | 70,145 |
| Worcester | 24.3 mi | SW 214° | 101,659 |
| Burton upon Trent | 25 mi | NNE 25° | 122,199 |
53 places between 25 and 50 mi, 3,394,343 people, 5,890 mi² of ground. The 12 largest are in the table; 41 smaller ones aren’t.
| Place | Distance | Bearing | Population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Telford | 26.7 mi | WNW 301° | 155,570 |
| Rugby | 27.8 mi | ESE 106° | 78,117 |
| Leicester | 34 mi | ENE 71° | 368,600 |
| Derby | 35.3 mi | NNE 30° | 270,468 |
| Stoke-on-Trent | 38 mi | NNW 342° | 258,366 |
| Newcastle under Lyme | 38.5 mi | NNW 339° | 127,727 |
| Shrewsbury | 39.1 mi | WNW 294° | 76,782 |
| Cheltenham | 40.9 mi | S 191° | 118,836 |
| Gloucester | 45 mi | SSW 199° | 132,416 |
| Nottingham | 45.3 mi | NE 44° | 323,632 |
| Northampton | 45.8 mi | ESE 110° | 245,899 |
| Crewe | 48.2 mi | NNW 332° | 76,437 |
Place names, coordinates and populations come from GeoNames, which the site uses under CC BY 4.0.
Area climbs with the square of the radius, and it catches people out every time. The 5 mi disc around Birmingham covers 79 mi². The 25 mi one covers 1,963 mi², twenty-five times as much for five times the distance. By 50 mi you’re looking at 7,854 mi² of England and whatever lies past its edges.
| Radius | Area inside (mi²) | This band only (mi²) | Places in band | People in band |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 mi (8.05 km) | 79 | 79 | 2 | 156,765 |
| 10 mi (16.09 km) | 314 | 236 | 11 | 862,239 |
| 25 mi (40.23 km) | 1,963 | 1,649 | 29 | 1,917,752 |
| 50 mi (80.47 km) | 7,854 | 5,890 | 53 | 3,394,343 |
Cross the two tables and something useful falls out. The 25 mi disc holds 4,094,359 listed people across 1,963 mi², about 2,086 per mi². Push out to 50 and you buy 5,890 mi² more for only 3,394,343 extra people. Most of that last band is empty, which is what you’d expect and still surprises people when they see it drawn.
Straight line, not drive time, and the difference bites hardest on the big ring. Manchester comes out at 70.5 mi from here as the crow flies, and nobody has ever driven it in a straight line. Use the circle as an outer bound. Treat anything sitting near the edge as optimistic, because real travel distance beats the radius every time and the gap grows with whatever the terrain throws in.
If travel time is genuinely what you need, use these rings to narrow the field first and check the survivors properly afterwards. The circle is cheap, instant, and honest about what it measures. It also can’t tell you that the 10 mi to the north crosses water while the same 10 mi to the south is dual carriageway the whole way.
Two things about the method. Distance is measured over the curve of the Earth, not across the flat map image, which is where a surprising number of simpler tools quietly go wrong. And the Earth gets treated as a sphere when it’s really a bit squashed, costing a fraction of a per cent. Fine for a catchment. No use for settling a boundary, so don’t try.
All of it was computed when the site was built, then written into a file that ships with the page. Nothing here is fetched while you read. That’s why the tables are in the HTML the server sends rather than appearing a second later, and it’s why the figures can’t drift: rerun the build and every number on all fifty of these pages is recalculated from the same dump.
Most of the traffic to a page like this is practical. Somebody wants to know which towns near Birmingham fall inside a service area, or how many people live within 25 miles of a site they’re weighing up. The table answers the first one outright. For the second, take the ring populations as a floor, since everything under 15,000 people is missing from them.
The five closest cities with their own page are listed below, measured from this same centre. Manchester is nearest at 70.5 mi north, which means its 50 mi ring overlaps this one.