Kingston has been named as the second-best place in the UK to be born and to live in by The Times, using a new national index that ranks local authorities on quality-of-life standards.

The Better Lives Index was developed by the International Longevity Centre (ILC), and it looked at nine key factors to determine the best and worst places to live in the UK.

These factors include life expectancy, child poverty, pollution, disposable income, housing affordability, avoidable mortality, and economic activity across age groups.

The Hampshire district of Hart took first place, but Kingston-upon-Thames came second.

The Times reported that Kingston was "followed by Epsom and Ewell in Surrey, Bracknell Forest in Berkshire and another wealthy borough bordering southwest London and Surrey, Richmond-upon-Thames".

Kingston scored well on life expectancy measures, with an average life expectancy of 83 years and 8 months, higher than the national average of 81.

The borough also came out with high economic activity and low levels of child poverty and pollution.

This comes after The Guardian named Surbiton as one of the happiest places to live in London.

The bottom of the table is predominantly areas in the north of England, the Midlands, and parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

East Lindsey in Lincolnshire ranked last, with high rates of child poverty.

In places like Hart and Kingston, the child poverty rate is 12%, but in the lowest ranked areas it jumps to 40%.

The ILC report states that these findings reveal "a stark measure of unequal access to the conditions for a good life".