Birmingham: 1.8% movement, 117 days on market and flood-risk filtering

[DirectCairn]

I’m tracking Birmingham property between £664,600 and £996,800. The snapshot shows 1.8% movement and roughly 117 days on market, while negotiated discounts seem to vary sharply with condition.

The feed describes these as “coastal homes”, which plainly needs checking for an inland city; perhaps flood-risk filtering or the category itself is distorting the results. My working view is that local supply matters more than headline demand. Does that hold once recent completed sales, withdrawn stock and price cuts are separated out? Please include the Birmingham neighbourhood and property type.

 

[NimblePlan]

I wouldn’t draw much from 117 days until withdrawn and relisted properties are identified. A small pool of stale listings can pull the figure away from what genuinely new stock is doing. I’d also treat flood risk separately from that coastal label. How tightly are you defining each neighbourhood, and are these houses, flats or a mixture?

 

[radar.wise]

What exactly does the 1.8% represent: an increase or decrease, and in asking prices or completed prices? That distinction could change the conclusion completely. Buyer financing may also explain why two properties in similar condition receive different offers, especially across such a broad price range.

 

[miro_ash]

I’m not convinced supply is necessarily the main driver. Seller motivation and the timing of the first reduction can make condition look more influential than it is. A dated property priced realistically from day one may outperform a renovated one that starts too high.

I’d build a small matched table by neighbourhood and property type: original asking price, reduction dates, current status, completed price where available, days listed, condition, and whether it was withdrawn or relisted. That should reveal whether the spread follows new-listing volume or simply a handful of ambitious sellers.