NZ Herald QV Property Report - June 2017

Monday, June 5, 2017

CALL FOR MORE TENANT RIGHTS P3 MARKET SLOWING P5

Taking the P Are dangers of meth contamination overplayed?

INSIDE: LATEST QV.CO.NZ VALUES COVERING 420 NORTH ISLAND SUBURBS

2

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Inside Is it time for rent controls?

3

Park views come with a hefty cost

4

The red tape of retirement homes New dawn of apartments in Parnell

5

Market Watch with Jonno Ingerson Urban planning

6

QV Data Report with Andrea Rush Cover story — Meth paranoia

8-9

Bedrooms boost rent

10

What the industry says

11

What your home is worth

12-17

Spotlight on Coatesville Remuera Botany

18 20 22

Editor: Steve.Hart@nzherald.co.nz Contributors: Graham Hepburn, Diana Clement, Greg Fleming, David Maida, Sandra Goodwin, Jonno Ingerson, Andrea Rush. Photos: NZ Herald and supplied. Production: Donna McIntyre. Cover design & graphics: Rob Cox, Suzanne Denmead. Display advertising: (09) 373 6004.

Source: QV.co.nz / NZHerald graphic

Tide has turned for sellers

I

n six short months the Auckland housing market has turned from a frenzied all-you-can-eat buffet, gatecrashed by visitors grabbing plenty of treats, to a room with a few buyers with hands in their pockets. Last year estate agents couldn’t bus people across the city to open homes fast enough. Property was frequently selling days after being listed and often well before the advertised auction date. How times have changed. Sellers who last year would have marketed their home with an auction date are now selling by negotiation or — horror of horrors — letting buyers know how much they want for their property. Imagine that, properties being advertised with an asking price. While this growing trend will stop agents being bothered by tyre kicking time wasters, it means fewer potential buyers will contact them to find out more. (Which the agents won’t be happy about.) It’s always chilly at the peak. That’s why you find snow on

the top of mountains. So while the market may have cooled, due in part to Asian buyers facing road blocks to getting their cash out of China, it doesn’t mean our property prices will drop like a stone. There are still thousands of people moving here every month and we are still short of 30,000 homes across the Super City. Because of this we can ignore headlines warning that Auckland house prices have a 40 per cent chance of “collapsing”. That claim was based on a report by Goldman

Sachs. Well, take a breath. A “collapse” in banker’s parlance is a drop in property value of 5 per cent. And given we have been paying 20 and 40 per cent deposits on home purchases, there is little risk to us or the banks should such a drop in values occur. And, even if values do go down, it won’t happen overnight unless there is some global calamity we couldn’t hope to foresee or avoid (US/North Korea war?). The market seems to have gone full circle. So if you want to sell your home, take it to market. Just don’t expect a lot of frantic activity until the next cycle of property inflation starts. If you are buying, don’t be railroaded into making a hasty decision. The pressure is off and the ball is, at long last, in your court. If you missed out on bagging a bargain last year, don’t worry. The real bargains were two years ago and you are not alone in having missed the boat . . . but there will be another one. Be prepared.

Exceptionally tuned in to what’s happening in the Ponsonby/Herne Bay area, Karen’s your No. 1 property professional. For an outstanding result, let Karen direct your sale.

Karen Spires AREINZ M 027 273 8220 | E karen.spires@bayleys.co.nz Bayleys Real Estate Limited, Ponsonby, Licensed under the REA Act 2008.

3

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Call for more tenant rights Diana Clement asks if New Zealand’s rental landscape is ripe for an overhaul

H

ousing is a basic human need. But tenants in New Zealand say it’s hard to feel secure when renting, as it is too easy for landlords to give them notice to move out. Now some industry experts are suggesting this country’s rental landscape is ripe for rent controls and long-term leases giving tenants the ability to rent a home long term. Currently, the 30-year-old Residential Tenancies Act (1986) allows landlords to give tenants 90 days’ notice to move with no reason given. They need only give 42 days’ notice if they plan to move into the property themselves and can increase rents every 180 days. This lack of tenure and insecurity over rent rises means that tenants can’t set down roots. Those with children often have to change schools, buy new school uniforms and may be forced to rent at a much higher price than they can afford. In their book Generation Rent: Rethinking New Zealand’s Priorities, Shamubeel and Selena Eaqub argue that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary people to buy their own homes and that living in private rental homes should no longer be a second-rate option. The whole basis of power in the relationship between landlord and tenants is biased in favour of landlords, says Alan Johnson, senior policy analyst with the Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit. Tenants fear standing up to their landlords when there are issues with the property because they live under the threat of eviction, regardless of what happens in the Tenancy Tribunal. Rent controls The answer, say some, is rent controls. These are common in parts of the United States and European countries such as Switzerland and Germany. Such controls even out the bargaining power between landlords and tenants. In some cases those controls involve rent caps. In others, there are limits to how much rent can be raised over time. Angela Maynard, manager of the Tenants' Protection Association (Auckland), is in no doubt that Auckland needs rent controls. “Here rents can go up every six months. It has got to the stage where people can’t afford to rent a house. “Where can they go? This Government is not into subsidising unless you are on the street, or almost on the street, or in a motel.” Median rents paid for a three-bedroom property in Auckland range from $500 in Otahuhu to $1000 in Herne Bay/St Marys Bay according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment’s Tenancy Services data. Even at $500 that’s 38 hours’ work at the post-tax minimum wage. Much as it would like to see rent controls, the Salvation Army doesn’t believe they work. “Markets find ways around controls,” Johnson says. None-the-less the Salvation Army believes market rent is not a fair measure to increase rent on. It would rather see landlords’ ability to increase rents based on increases to the Consumer Price Index or wage increases, not “market rents”. The problem with basing rent increases on “market rent”, adds Maynard is that mechanism can ratchet rent up unnaturally. For example, more landlords are renting by the room to students and others, which brings in a higher rent for the property than letting it as one tenancy. Or, says

Tenants say rental legislation makes it too easy for landlords to kick them out. Maynard, owners of sought-after properties use rent auctions where desperate potential tenants bid against each other to win the property, which increases the rent. Both measures push up the median which landlords base their rent increase on. Food isn’t subsidised There are always two or more sides to an argument. When it comes to rent controls, Andrew King, president of the New Zealand Property Investors Federation, points out that Kiwis need to eat, yet there are no price controls on food. “Providing a home for people is really expensive. (Rent) is the cost of providing a service,” says King. “Currently it’s over $100 a week cheaper to rent than own the average New Zealand home. Given renting is cheaper than owning, it indicates that rents are not that expensive.” He adds that the more red tape the Government adds, the more expensive rentals become for Kiwis. “Politicians need to realise the harder you make it for investors to provide a service, the more expensive that service is going to be. Ultimately it is the tenants that will pay.” Security of tenure It’s not just rent controls that tenants want enacted. Maynard advocates for a package of measures including security of tenure and warrants of fitness for rental properties, which ensure that the home is healthy and safe. Insecure tenancies can affect psychological health, community connections, schooling and household finance. Mark Bennett, senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Victoria University of Wellington, cites Ireland and Scotland

Property values level off The latest monthly QV House Price Index shows nationwide residential property values for May increased 9.7 per cent over the past year — the slowest annual rate in two years. Values rose by 0.4 per cent over the past three months and the nationwide average value is $634,018 which is 53 per cent above the previous market peak of late 2007. When adjusted for inflation the nationwide annual increase drops slightly to 7.4 per cent and values are now 27.8 per cent above the 2007 peak. Residential values across Auckland increased 9.3 per cent year on year which is the slowest annual rate of growth seen since November 2014. Quarterly value growth remains flat, rising just 0.1 per cent over the past three months. The

average value for Auckland is $1,044,561 and values are now on average 91.1 per cent higher than the previous peak of 2007. When adjusted for inflation values rose 7 per cent over the past year and are 44 per cent above the 2007 peak. QV spokesperson Andrea Rush said: “Nationwide value growth continues to ease back due to lower demand in the housing market caused by the latest round of LVR restrictions and tougher lending criteria from the banks as we head into the winter period. “Sales volumes are lower than they were this time last year particularly in Auckland and it’s possible market activity may remain more subdued until after the [general] election (on 23 September).”

Photo / Getty

as examples for New Zealand to consider. Both made changes to their tenancy laws to increase the security of tenure. In 2004, Ireland adopted a more European model, moving away from the English system of tenure security, that New Zealand follows. “The size of the private residential sector has not shrunk, so we know it doesn’t have any big impact on that. And Ireland is still increasing tenant protections for secure tenure, so we know that there is a view that the reforms don’t go far enough in protecting tenants,” he says. While some landlords argue that security of tenure curtails their right to sell properties, Johnson says secure tenancies could be sold with sitting tenants in the same way that commercial landlords do. This works overseas. For its part, the Property Investors Federation is not against security of tenure, providing it’s fair for both parties. Many landlords would like to have longer term responsible tenants, says King. But tenants often want to have their cake and eat it, too. They demand guaranteed security of tenure, but still want to be able to give three weeks’ notice to leave. There need to be concessions on both sides, says King. The other issue, he says, for landlords is that security of tenure does cut down their options considerably if they need to sell the property. “In Auckland, you cut out 60 per cent of potential buyers.” Maynard says: “In a civilised society that respects its citizens, you should be able to house your population. Rent controls and security of tenure, followed by good healthy safe housing, enable that.”

Time-out for immigration The Government’s announcement that 34,000 houses will be built in Auckland over the next 10 years has Harcourts CEO Chris Kennedy wondering where the infrastructure is to support this. He says if immigration remains at current levels — it is estimated 60,000 new residents made Auckland their home last year — the housing initiative will not solve the problem of demand far outstripping supply, and prices will remain high. “Our woefully inadequate infrastructure, already stretched to its limit, will not be able to cope,” he says.

4

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Ground rents rise to busting point Crippling annual leasehold payments are making living on the edge of Cornwall Park unaffordable, writes David Maida

T

he property boom has been stressful for some leaseholding residents who have seen their ground rents go sky high. It has led to an ongoing dispute between the Cornwall Park Leaseholders Association and the Cornwall Park Trust Board. Tension between the parties has now made its way to a Parliamentary Select Committee. Leaseholders want the right to buy the land their homes sit on, just as they can in the UK. Leaseholders association chairman John Carter says 15 households have had to forfeit their homes because they could no longer afford the ground rent and could not sell the buildings for an acceptable figure. “The last one that the leaseholder walked away from, their ground rent was fixed at $92,000 a year,” Carter said. Carter said the trust board has picked up around $2.3 million worth of forfeited properties. He said ground rents make up about 80 per cent of the trust’s income. Cornwall Park is a legacy gift from Sir John Logan Campbell who directed that the adjoining land be leased to pay for maintenance of the park. The trust’s assets have grown from $171 million in 2009 to $325 million today. The ground rents are limited to 5 per cent of the land value with

For people whose homes border Cornwall Park, the booming property market has fuelled massive rises in ground rents. the average rental now being $40,000 a year. “What’s happening is they rely on the ground rentals to pay for the park but they’ve already lost 15 of those. One section, 46 Maungakiekie Ave, has been vacant for 10 years,” Carter said. Carter said most of the remaining lessees are long-term residents who have built their own homes on the land. He is seeking new leases with an option to buy the land freehold. Carter said the 2014 sale of leasehold land in Parnell by the Dilworth Trust board set a precedent for this option. Without an option to buy the land, he says it is inevitable that all 110 homes will have to be vacated. “Some people are so desperate, because they can’t afford the rent, that they’re taking silly offers. But there has not been a sale of a single property where the ground rent has been $40,000 or more,” Carter said. Carter’s rent is $40,000. He fears his ground rent could rise to between $150,000 and $200,000 a year. In 1995, his ground rent was less than $3000. “I never ever imagined it would go to $40,000. I thought it might go into the late 20s or 30s. But then just before our rent review came up, the market took off and it hasn’t stopped.” If he knew it was going to turn out like this, Carter says he

Photo / Herald file

would have never bought a leasehold property. He says a lot of people said he was silly buying leasehold and, in retrospect, he agrees with them. But he adds there are a reasonable amount of intelligent people among the lessees. Leaseholding was supposed to be an affordable way for people to get into a home. It’s worked fine for the past 100 years with people having to abandon their properties only in the current property boom. Carter said when he bought his lease, he replaced the little shack it had on it with what is now a luxury home. “At the moment we can’t see any other option other than to walk away when our 21-year-lease expires in about 10 years.” Carter said the leaseholders association represents about 80 per cent of the 110 households. In an online survey, 30 per cent admitted they were in arrears with their rent. “They are struggling to stay alive in their leaseholds.” But the trust is the landowner and currently has the final word. In a written response to questions, it argued that if Parliament were to intervene, it would amount to legislative confiscation of its land. The trust says it wouldn’t be able to sell the land to the highest bidder but would be forced to sell it to specific individuals.

Retirement village trade-off is capital gain SANDRA GOODWIN Around 12.5 per cent of Kiwis aged 75 and older now live in retirement villages, up from around 12.1 per cent in 2015. Our population of seniors is skyrocketing so if that record 12.5 per cent market penetration is maintained or grows, we’ll have record numbers in retirement villages. Therefore many of us could do with some basic knowledge of how their costs typically work. The Retirement Commissioners’ office (or Commission for Financial Capability) is a Crown agency. Its national manager of retirement villages, Troy Churton, runs educational seminars for people considering buying into a village. He says in more than 80 per cent of cases, people are signing up for a licence to occupy a residence rather than outright ownership of the property. “People need to be aware that the vast majority of villages do not offer any share of capital gain in the licence that they buy. And they need to understand that the operator usually keeps about 20 to 30 per cent of the original capital they paid . . . at the time they terminate their licence. This is usually called a deferred management fee but can be called a fixed deduction, facilities or amenities fee. “This is the amount ploughed back into the business, in theory, to ensure the amenities and facilities remain futurefit for the next generation of customers.” As well as their initial outlay, residents pay a weekly fee averaging $122 nationally, which can approach $200 in bluechip areas. Weekly costs are higher if people opt for extra care or services such as cleaning, rather than an independent living set-up. Prospective residents should consider whether they’re signing up under a fixed weekly fee model or one that may rise. Troy says top publicly listed, corporate-owned villages have been making $100 million-plus profits a year, the

Barry Sarney, left, waiting for a retirement village place. Troy Churton, national manager of retirement villages, at The Retirement Commissioners’ office. majority of that coming from their appreciating property holdings. He won’t be drawn on whether he considers it fair that villages invariably keep any property value increases. He says the regime is a heavily disclosure-orientated process, and prospective residents are well-informed about obligations in advance as it’s compulsory to get independent legal advice before signing the occupational right agreement. Importantly, residents report satisfaction levels of around 95 per cent with their decision to have moved into villages, a fact agreed by Churton and the executive director of the Retirement Village Association, John Collyns. With 96 per cent of the industry belonging to this voluntary association (including all the big players), it speaks for the vast majority of operators. Collyns says residents’ weekly fees go towards everyday expenses such as staff salaries, rates, building insurance, water and operation of the village van. Boosted equity release from home values is one reason thought to be influencing more people moving into villages.

Most villages set prices to be around three-quarters of the average value of a freehold home in their area, which can leave money in people’s pockets. He believes other factors driving popularity are the desire for good security, wanting to farewell property maintenance and having companionship. Also, it’s becoming more common for elderly parents to live remotely from their adult children who may have moved cities or countries, meaning it’s less practical for their parents to move in with them. John says if people want to choose the best retirement village for their needs, they shouldn’t leave it too late by waiting until ill health forces their hand. Average retirement village tenure is seven years. The operator usually manages the sale of the residence. Troy says they may continue to charge weekly fees to the former resident or their estate until its relicense or resale, dropping them to 50 per cent if it’s unsold six months after being vacated. Troy says: “There’s no doubt that taking 20 to 30 per cent of someone’s capital exposes them to what options they have if they want to leave the village.” Numerous new villages are being built to meet forecast demand. And the association is already planning for predicted future changes in the property market such as reduced levels of home ownership in decades to come. It’s providing alternatives such as purely rental residences or capital sum part-payment teamed with higher weekly fees. Former NZ Herald staffer Estelle Sarney, who lives in Auckland, is looking forward to the peace-of-mind of knowing her 83-year-old Wellington-based father Barry is being cared for by a retirement village. She says: “Dad has lived alone since mum passed away 17 years ago and that becomes harder with age. My brother also lives in Wellington but travels often for work. “Dad has put himself on the waiting list for a unit in a Wellington retirement village we chose together. He will be able to take his dog, and is looking forward to it.”

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Get your first Edition GREG FLEMING

What feedback have you been getting? A lot of the people interested in Edition are leaving their large family homes or returning from overseas. They want generous spaces, high-end fixtures and fittings, but also spaces that are easy to live in and in the middle of the city. The architecture designed by Monk Mackenzie, with its cantilevered design and facade of Italian glass bricks, makes it unlike anything else in the city.

A

new chapter in the Auckland apartment market launches when Edition, a high-end 18-apartment complex is brought to market in Parnell early next month. The complex is being developed by development and construction business LEP Group. Building will start in October and the expected finish date is mid-2019. LEP has worked on office, public and retail developments, and had been looking for the right site for an apartment project. The company is working with architects at Monk Mackenzie, and Bureaux designers. In creating Edition, Mackenzie imagined a bold, contemporary building to occupy the sloping site. The upper three levels will be cantilevered above the ground, creating a profile with a sophisticated shape that enables view shafts from the street through to the harbour. Property Report spoke to LEP Group director Russell Thompson to find out more about this development. Is this a new chapter in Auckland’s apartment market? We think so. The apartment market has matured — what Aucklanders want out of apartment living has become more sophisticated, more in line with how people live in European and Australian cities. Edition is an example of buyers expecting more than just convenience when it comes to medium-density residences. It’s a new chapter for Parnell, too. In the 80s and 90s,

5

Address: Edition is at the end of Churton Rd, two blocks back from Parnell’s cafes, galleries, restaurants and boutiques. Views: Judges Bay and the Hauraki Gulf to the north and east. Living: Floor-to-ceiling windows emphasise the high stud and allow natural light in. Every apartment has an outdoor patio; some have additional garden space. Kitchens: Miele ovens, induction cooktops and dishwashers, Bosch fridge-freezers and Italian tapware. Bathrooms: Travertine tiles, marble, Italian tapware. Contact: Trent Quinton, Trent.Quinton@bayleys.co.nz Pictured above: View from Edition. Parnell was the place to be. But Ponsonby became where everyone wanted to live and go out. Parnell’s started making a comeback — it has harbour views, it’s walking distance to the city and the waterfront, and the train station is nearby.

Will this be of interest to property investors? No, this is a building for owner-occupiers. There are only 18 apartments in Edition and each is designed as a home rather than an investment. What’s on offer? There are one-, two-, three- or four-bedroom options. The ‘smaller’ apartments range from one-bedroom, 81sq m apartments through to two-bedroom 105sq m; mid-range, a mixture of two-bedroom, plus media room, that ranges from 121sq m to 170sq m; the larger apartments start at 225sq m and include a 335sq m penthouse. Prices start at $1.6 million. We have taken a pared-back approach to building amenities, because most amenities are rarely used and end up contributing to an inflated body corp fee. Instead, we’ve focused on the quality of the architecture and the interiors. All apartments have oak cabinetry, travertine stone, floorto-ceiling windows, Miele and Bosch appliances and Italian tapware. Outside, communal spaces include a reflection pond, pebble gardens and a winter garden.

Market has slowed dramatically

T

he last two months have seen a significant slowdown in the property market, across the country. Yes, we are now experiencing the chill of winter, but this is more than just that. The first evidence comes from our measure of buyer demand. There was a surge in activity during late February and early March, which is normal for that time of year, and usually carries through until Easter. However, this year, the demand started to dive three weeks before Easter. With Easter and Anzac falling on consecutive weekends we expected activity to drop over those two weeks. And, indeed it did. But since then, demand hasn’t rebounded as much as normal. Year-on-year demand is much lower in Auckland and across the rest of the country is more or less flat. Flat doesn’t sound too bad — but, given the strength of the last 12 months, the lack of buyers now out on the streets will be noticeable. Falling demand means falling sales, and we’ve definitely seen this. The number of sales over the past three months compared to last year has fallen 31 per cent in Auckland. In Hamilton and Tauranga sales volumes are down about a quarter. Further south, the year-on-year drop is less significant, but this is a nationwide drop. The Reserve Bank’s latest lending restrictions have in part been targeted at investors. So has this drop in activity been at their expense? Yes, but so, too, for other types of buyers. In Auckland, the number of first home buyers has dropped to the lowest level for many years, lower even than

MARKET WATCH JONNO INGERSON, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CORELOGIC

during the recession in 2008. The number of people moving house in Auckland has also dropped markedly — not quite as low as during the recession, but not far off. The number of investors purchasing with the help of a mortgage has also fallen to similar levels, while investors paying in cash have remained unchanged, as they have over many years. Across the rest of the country there has been a similar drop in the number of investors using mortgages, but people moving house have also been knocked back hard. The fall in first home buyers isn’t as much as in Auckland. So, although their numbers have dropped, they now make up a bigger slice of the sales pie as the investors and movers are pushed back. Dropping demand and dropping sales usually means values take a hit, and that is happening, too. In Auckland values are slowly sliding backwards, as they have since last July. It’s not a rapid decline, something in the order of 0.5 per cent every three months, but that is quite a change from a year or two ago. One contributor is that there are now 50 per cent more properties for sale in Auckland than a year ago, meaning

more choice for buyers. In Hamilton, values dropped from July to December but have since rebounded and over the past nine months are more or less flat. Almost everywhere else in New Zealand has seen the previous rate of value growth slow considerably. The major exception is Christchurch where values are also slowly dropping. What’s the cause of this weakness? It’s a combination of things. The Reserve Bank lending restrictions, banks being much tighter with who they lend to, interest rates sneaking up a little, and the upcoming general election with housing issues front and centre making people nervous. My call? I’m expecting activity to slow down further over winter and things won’t pick up again until after the dust of the election has settled and we know how any new Government will treat migration, property investors, and of course, the tough task of building more houses.

CoreLogic is a leading property information, analytics and services provider created by the merging of PropertyIQ and Terralink International. CoreLogic helps clients identify and manage growth opportunities, improve performance and mitigate risk through innovative, technology-based services such as QV.co.nz.

6

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Big changes needed

A revamp of urban planning would make the process more flexible and responsive, writes David Maida

T

he way New Zealand’s urban areas are planned looks set to change significantly if the Government accepts the results of a study it commissioned. Stephen Bailey, enquiry director at the Productivity Commission, says urban planning should be flexible and responsive. “There are major deficiencies in the current planning framework,” Bailey says. For instance, planners need to be able to change land use as required and allow for population shifts. But they also should keep within environmental limits. The current Resource Management Act is so flawed that Bailey recommends reforming it or scrapping it. “The environment has not been very well served by the RMA,” he says. The RMA’s ambiguous language has created arbitrary boundaries between the natural and built environment. Bailey says it has created an adversarial and legalistic framework. The commission proposes creating local Independent Hearings Panels that would have the final decision on the merits of plans, plan variations and private plan changes. Difficult cases would then be appealed to the Environment Court but only on points of law. This is meant to streamline the process. The Government gave the Productivity Commission a “blue skies” mandate to offer fundamental and far-reaching recommendations in its study. Bailey says it’s important to put these big issues out on the table and have the discussion about where New Zealand needs to go. There are huge benefits to reform, and huge costs for not doing anything, Bailey says. The current system’s greatest flaws are its degradation of the environment and inability to meet housing demands. The way cities are organised can lead to a mismatch of businesses and labour markets. “The value of land two kilometres within the Auckland city boundary is almost 10 times the value of land two kilometres outside the boundary. That shows the system is under stress and there is an imbalance there,” Bailey says. Auckland has a monumental imbalance when it comes to housing, public transport and people’s ability to access the labour market. The commission cites a 2016 study from Leung and Adli measuring people’s ability to get to work. “Only 100,000 Aucklanders are living within a 45-minute public transport commute of 100,000 or more jobs — compared to about 300,000 people in Perth or over a million people in Sydney,” they wrote.

Auckland’s road infrastructure generates a lower quantity of job accessibility. Aucklanders’ ability to access more than 20 per cent of jobs within a 45-minute public transport commute was also the lowest in the study. “Auckland’s road infrastructure generates a lower quantity of job accessibility compared to Perth, Brisbane and Sydney,” Leung and Adli wrote. But some people want things to stay just the way they are. “Because of the political and policy process, as we know, certain interests have a disproportionate influence. Home owners are one example. You’ve seen how they mobilise pretty well and seem to be pretty effective,” Bailey says. Bailey says the proposed Independent Hearing Panels would remove political influence from the process. It’s intended that panel members would be chosen by skill and expertise rather than politics. The panels would review and approve council-proposed land-use plans. The report indicates that regional council policies are often “vague, too restrictive and aspirational”. The plan calls for councils to prepare Regional Spatial Strategies with a 50-year view. Mana whenua would have statutory rights to participate in the formulation of the strategy and to make sure Maori treaty interests are protected. “A lot of the big infrastructure corridors need to be thought about in long-term time frames,” Bailey says. Another major change would be to allow developers to do

Photo / Herald files

out-of-sequencing development— paying to put in their own infrastructure without the current planning and legislative barriers. This could free up land at the fringe of cities and let land prices fall towards their “social opportunity cost”. This could create competitive urban land markets without burdening councils with large infrastructure costs. “This can sidestep the land bankers stranglehold on land supply and avoid additional burdens on councils because they ration the rollout of infrastructure,” Bailey says. The new system would discourage land banking because taxation would be on land values rather than capital value. It would also remove the expectation of future scarcity, which would discourage land bankers. “They can sit on land but there will be enough capacity for the market to go elsewhere. Therefore the value will not increase,” Bailey says. The report also suggests streamlining the planning process in certain designated redevelopment areas by granting local authorities the powers of compulsory acquisition. Local development authorities could only use compulsory acquisitions subject to the protections of the Public Works Act and compensation. Bailey understands officials are now beavering away at the proposals put forward. But there are no guarantees of any changes. — DavidMaida.com

Easier time to buy in Auckland If you can afford it, then it’s a relatively easier time to buy a residential property in Auckland than it was this time last year. There are 50 per cent more listings and more properties are being marketed with asking prices or by negotiation than by auction. For sellers, this means it is important to present a property well and to ensure any outstanding maintenance has been done, as buyers have more choice and are more picky. In many parts of Auckland values continue to see moderate growth with well-presented and well-located properties continuing to sell for record prices. All 170 Auckland suburbs measured in the qv.co.nz E-Valuer quarterly report saw values rise in the year since March 2016. However, a number of suburbs saw a drop in values in the first quarter of 2017. In the former Auckland City council suburbs, 10 of the 51 measured in the report saw values drop over the first quarter of the year. These included Wai-o-taiki Bay, which decreased the most — by 3.6 per cent; Glen Innes down 2.4 per cent; and Sandringham and Blockhouse Bay where values dropped 2.1 per cent. And, in a noticeable trend, some of the strongest value growth in percentage and dollar terms over the past year were in the city’s top-end coastal suburbs of Mission Bay and Kohimarama, as well as Waiheke ’s Oneroa. On the North Shore, the same trend has been seen with top-end suburbs Stanley Point, Chatswood and Takapuna achieving some of the highest annual value growth, while 18

DATA REPORT ANDREA RUSH QV NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON

out of the 38 suburbs measured in the report had values decrease in the first three months of this year. Values in Schnapper Rock, near Albany, a suburb with large homes favoured by new migrants, dropped 5.7 per cent to a median E-Valuer of $1,360,750. Possibly one reason for this could be reports that there have been fewer Chinese buyers active in the market since a tightening by the Chinese Government on cash being taken out of that country. Prices in entry-level North Shore suburbs of Birkdale (with a median E-Valuer of $774,650) and Beach Haven (with median E-Valuer of $869,950) also dropped 4.1 per cent and 2.5 per cent respectively over the same period but prices there still remain out of reach of most first home buyers. Higher-end western suburbs Titirangi and Laingholm have experienced solid value growth with both posting record sales. Some lower-valued areas popular with entry level investors, such as Sunnyvale and Te Atatu South, had values decreasing in the first quarter of the year.

In Manukau, top-end suburbs Bucklands Beach, Maraetai, Beachlands and Dannemora experienced the highest annual growth while values in more than half of the suburbs dropped over the first three months of 2017, including some higher-end suburbs such as Farm Cove (down 3.5 per cent); Northpark (down 4.4 per cent) and “The Gardens” (down 5.9 per cent); as well as lower-valued suburbs popular with investors such as Manurewa East (down 1.5 per cent) and Otara (down 1.8 per cent). Auckland sales volumes are down more than 30 per cent on the same time last year due to lower demand in part caused by the last year’s LVR rules, as well as banks using stricter lending criteria across the board. Add to that the annual winter slowdown and the upcoming election, which often causes a wait and see approach by buyers and sellers. What is interesting is that the LVR restrictions have not resulted in a reduction in the share of sales to investors as intended by the Reserve Bank. In fact, the latest CoreLogic Buyer Classification data shows the share of all sales to Auckland investors in Q1 2017 rose to a high of 43 per cent with cash investors taking a greater share of this pie as many investors needing a mortgage have been locked out by the 40 per cent deposit rule. The share of sales to those moving home decreased from a high of 28 per cent last year to 24 per cent, and first home buyers’ share also dropped from 21 per cent to 20 per cent of all Auckland sales.

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

7

8

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Property investors are taking no chances with a 2016 survey revealing that around threequarters of them ask for a methamphetamine test on properties they are looking to buy. Each test can run to hundreds of dollars. Photos / Getty, Herald Files

COOKING UP Home owners are spending hundreds and thousands of dollars on meth testing and clean-ups. But is some of the hype around the industry forcing concerned owners to pay for cleaning when it’s not actually a health risk? Greg Fleming reports

B

uying a home these days is fraught. First you have to find one you can afford (tricky in Auckland’s market), and then — more often than you might think — ensure it is not contaminated by methamphetamine. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of meth usage in the world (a 2015 world survey found us fourth just behind El Salvador, Philippines and Australia). Meth (also referred to as P) can be made out of readily available household products plus one more ingredient, ephedrine. This is often trafficked into New Zealand from China and South-East Asia, or extracted from cold medicines. Local ‘cooks’ can whip up a batch in a few hours and they may just have used the kitchen in that nice house you’re thinking of buying. These ‘cooks’ have limited knowledge of the chemical processes involved, are often high themselves and will move their operations from house to house regularly to avoid detection. Safety is the last thing on their minds. That’s bad news for home buyers; and not just for health reasons. The prevalence of meth contamination has prompted insurance companies to raise their rates. IAG, which owns the brands NZI, AMI and State Insurance, last year increased the current standard excess from $400 to $2500 for meth claims. On top of the excess increase, rental home owners will also face an increase in their annual premiums of between $40 and $130. Property investors are taking no chances with a 2016 survey revealing that around three-quarters of them will ask for a methamphetamine test on properties they are looking to buy. A baseline test for meth can run to hundreds of dollars (see sidebar). This has led to a boom in companies offering testing and decontamination services. Yet experts in the field are suggesting the industry’s meth paranoia is misplaced. Dr Leo Schep, a toxicologist at the National Poisons Centre, at the University of Otago, is one. He believes that when addressing problems associated with contaminated houses, there are two separate issues — “a house where someone smoked methamphetamine, or a house that was used to manufacture methamphetamine”. In a post on the science media website, he says that “people living in a laboratory environment risk suffering adverse cardiovascular, respiratory and dermal effects

following the exposure to organic solvents, acids, alkalis and other chemicals. However, people living in a house where previous tenants had smoked methamphetamine, and there is some evidence of low concentrations on surfaces, have minimal risks of toxicity.” The standards were reviewed last October by the Ministry of Health (MOH). That resulted in a recommendation to increase the level of meth needed to warrant a clean-up by up to four times the previous guidelines. But that hasn’t solved the issue. To date the Standards New Zealand (now MBIE) process has not resulted in an outcome — one is expected later this month — but the presence of guidelines endorsed by MOH mean that players in the property market must pay attention to them. Dr Nick Kim, a senior lecturer at Massey’s School of Public Health, is another who believes we have, in many instances, been over-playing the dangers of meth contamination.

“Internationally, detection of drug residues including methamphetamine on banknotes has not been interpreted as a direct cause for public health alarm, and there is no prospect of any jurisdiction requiring that banknotes be decontaminated between users.” Dr Nick Kim “Ordinary home buyers have become vulnerable because the simple presence or absence of meth can have an impact on the ability to sell a house.” He believes the guidelines are causing an unnecessary panic in the industry. “Exceeding a guideline is not the same as saying that there is a genuine health risk. “Guidelines include many safety factors. Both the older and newer guideline values correspond to regions where there is no measurable health risk. At a toxicological level they are effectively indistinguishable from each other, because both are hundreds of times lower than the point where we would expect to be able to measure the lowest pharmacological effect.”

METH MEASURES

Currently, any forensic detection over 0.50 micrograms is determined as requiring decontamination to reduce meth levels to less than 0.50 micrograms. This will likely change when the new standard is set — it’s looking like the New Zealand Standard will be set at 1.5 micrograms, like some American states. On average, a decontamination of a typical threebedroom home with low-level contamination may take three days to complete. Retesting is generally performed 72 hours later. This test can range between $160-$250. A stage two in-depth test can cost $1600-$2800. Decontamination costs depend on the level of contamination, size of property, level of difficulty and materials involved. SOURCE: Anthony Morley, managing director, Enviro

However, it’s these MOH guidelines that impact on banks and other legal entities. “Yes, when an MOH guideline exists, councils, insurers, mortgage lenders, landlords etc need to show compliance to be able to ‘prove’ the absence of a health risk for legal purposes.” In December last year, part of Whakatane Hospital’s paediatric ward was closed after a new report of someone using P in a toilet a year previously. It was tested and cleared, but situations like this in State houses, workplaces and rental properties throughout the country bring disruption and uncertainty to tenants, workers and home buyers. Last month, it was discovered that almost 400 Housing New Zealand properties were deemed uninhabitable because of methamphetamine contamination. Kim has witnessed a case where a property sale fell through when no meth at all was detected, simply because the real estate agent and buyer did not know how to properly interpret the laboratory report. He agrees with Schep in making the distinction between a house where meth has been smoked and one used to actually manufacture the drug. “The lab scenario is high risk, because a range of chemicals used to manufacture the meth have contaminated the indoor environment. Solvent vapours in particular are

9

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Advice for owners “It is important that purchasers carry out their own, thorough due diligence on a property before they purchase,” says REINZ CEO Bindi Norwell. “If they are concerned that a property may have been exposed to meth, they should obtain a test from an independent, reputable testing company. “The cost of a test is small compared to the investment required to buy a house.”

PARANOIA SIGNS OF CONTAMINATION

Signs of manufacturing are more detectable than a user-only situation. A clan (clandestine) lab could be detected by overpowering chemical smells, signs of damage/ aggression (e.g. holes in walls or damage to doors) and chemical staining in basins. There may be makeshift fume exhaust ducting systems, dead grass (where waste chemicals have been discarded) waste containers, opened lithium batteries and paint thinners.

TOP 5 METH HOTSPOTS

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Herekino Helensville Hamilton Central Opanuku Newton

SOURCE: University of Auckland The Geography of Methamphetamine Manufacture in New Zealand.

higher risk because they can be inhaled. The MOH guideline document was written only with this scenario in mind. “Residues left from the smoking scenario are low risk, because these involve traces only of methamphetamine itself deposited on surfaces, and inhalation is not a significant exposure route. “In broad terms, I would expect that indoor residues left on surfaces from smoking meth are at a similar type of risk level to residues left on surfaces from tobacco smoke.” So are home buyers wasting their money ensuring a home is ‘clean of meth’ before moving in? “I wouldn’t dictate what tenants or home buyers should do — this has to be left up to the individual choice,” says Kim. “I personally wouldn’t bother with getting any testing of this type done unless (a) there was strong evidence that the property was used to manufacture meth or other drugs or (b) I was planning to rent the property rather than live in it, or (c) I was planning to re-sell it within a couple of years.” Kim believes that if the purpose of testing was to carry out a genuine indoor health risk assessment, the testing companies should be looking for and reporting on other more common problems such as presence of lead paint, and asbestos. “For children, lead poisoning still represents a genuine

“I would expect that indoor residues left on surfaces from smoking meth at a similar type of risk level to residues left on surfaces from tobacco smoke.” Dr Nick Kim health risk, and is unfortunately still too common.” How long do the harmful effects of meth last once it is in the atmosphere or absorbed into gib board? “Meth residues are persistent but not eternal,” says Kim. “Since meth is an organic compound, it does gradually break down over time, and some is lost by evaporation. “From the controlled studies I have reviewed — once deposited on a surface, a lot of the original meth is then lost again by evaporation in the first few days, at levels that would be of no health concern. This leaves a lower level but more persistent ‘tail’ of residues and these can last for months and years in some cases.” Indeed Kim, in a 2016 paper, compares the traces of meth found on banknotes to those found in houses where the drug has been smoked. “Internationally, detection of drug residues including methamphetamine on banknotes has not been interpreted as a direct cause for public health alarm, and there is no prospect of any jurisdiction requiring that banknotes be decontaminated between users. “In a hierarchy of relative health hazards and risks, contaminated banknotes and houses where methamphetamine has been smoked would be at the low end of any scale.” Anthony Morley, managing director at Enviro Clean & Restoration (NZ’s only qualified methamphetamine cleanup company), says there has been a downturn in inquiries about contamination since the new guidelines were released. “This threw a lot of doubt and confusion into whether a house required decontamination or not. Was it a user-only situation or was the property used as a clandestine manufacturing lab?” he says. “The standard should tidy up a lot of this uncertainty and people will then be guided by an actual standard instead of a guideline only.” Enviro does not do testing as it considers it a conflict of interest with its decontamination efforts.

What are the agents’ roles and responsibilities in informing prospective buyers? “Licensed real estate agents are bound to follow the disclosure requirements set out in the Real Estate Agents Act Professional Conduct and Client Care Rules 2012. “Meth contamination is considered an underlying property defect and needs to be disclosed to prospective buyers. “If a vendor refuses to allow REINZ CEO Bindi the contamination to be Norwell disclosed, the agent is required to walk away from the listing.” What are the REINZ policies regarding this? “REINZ is part of the National Standards Committee that has, over the past 18 months, been developing the New Zealand Methamphetamine Testing and Decontamination Standard (P8150). “The standard is due for release in late June. In addition to the national standard, REINZ will be releasing best practice guides to help REINZ members understand the standard and ensure that they are meeting their obligations under the Professional Conduct Rules. “Real estate agencies also have internal policies for dealing with potential or known meth contamination. What recourse do buyers have if they find their houses have contamination — and they weren’t informed by the agent? “The facts of every situation will differ considerably. A purchaser will need to obtain legal advice to assess what, if any, action they can take. “Licensed real estate agents are required to meet a number of legislative requirements and to follow the disclosure requirements set out in the Real Estate Agents Act Professional Conduct and Client Care Rules.”

Two decades of use in Auckland Miles Stratford, director of Meth Solutions, says meth has been in use in Auckland for 20 or so years, and that contaminants don’t disappear on their own. “There will be tens of thousands of historic issues,” he says. Does it get recorded on the LIM? “Typically this only happens when police get involved and they have enough evidence to strongly indicate, or have confirmation, that meth manufacture has occurred. “A history of police involvement, but no reference on the LIM to meth manufacture, does not mean a property is free of meth issues. “Occasionally, people who get meth reports that show meth present, but who feel that an owner/agent/property manager is not being open with their disclosure, have been known to send copies of meth test reports to local councils/ territorial authorities.” Long-term health effects Studies into health effects associated with living in properties that have been used as meth labs are not widely available. However, the effects of the chemicalsused in manufacture are understood. Living in a contaminated property increases the risk of cancer, nervous disorders/tremors, damage to kidneys and liver, birth defects and reproductive problems.

10

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Bedroom additions boost rent Savvy landlords look for properties that have the space to create more bedrooms, writes Diana Clement

R

ental homes have different qualities than owner-occupied dwellings. Typically an owner-occupier likes large lounges and living space. Professional property investors, however, often look for ways to add bedrooms, sometimes at the expense of the living area. Turning a twobedroom property into three bedrooms ups the rent — and often the overall value. According to QV, the median rent for a two-bedroom house in Avondale is $460 a week. Change the search to three bedroom and it’s $530. That’s a big difference in cash flow week in, week out. Likewise, the median house price for Avondale, a popular rental suburb, is $745,000 for two-bedroom properties and $820,000 for three bedrooms. That doesn’t mean that a twobedroom property converted to three bedrooms will automatically jump in price by $75,000 on paper. But it will increase and become more desirable to a greater range of buyers. The problem is how to add an extra bedroom. For owneroccupiers that often means building an extension. But the cost of building an extension is prohibitive if you’re looking solely at rental yield and return on investment. Instead, investors look for properties that can have extra rooms created within the existing footprint.

Making two rooms out of one adds value in potential rental income and makes the property more desirable to a greater range of buyers. One of the most common ways investors do this is to convert the kitchen into a bedroom. The kitchen is then moved into to the lounge. In many cases, it’s a cheap job to do for investors who aren’t looking to buy top-of-the-range designer fittings and appliances. If the kitchen has an outside window, then it’s a matter of putting a door and a Gibbed wall in and getting a builder (unless you can do the building work yourself ), sparkie and plumber to finish the work legally. Another option is carving up large living areas and adding an internal wall and door. That’s easier than moving walls, although some investors do this to create three rooms from two. Another option in older-style homes is to turn the laundry into a small bedroom and add the laundry to a bathroom, kitchen, or to put it in a large cupboard. Garages sometimes provide the space needed to create extra bedrooms (as Herald Homes wrote in a previous article: http://tinyurl.com/NZHgarage) but they often need planning consent.

Some landlords are tempted to throw up a bit of Gib board and shove a few more tenants in. If the garage has been converted illegally, however, tenants can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to get all their rent refunded from day one. What’s more, woe betide the landlord who tries to cut corners in creating an extra bedroom. Property manager Jack Vale, of Tommy’s Property Management, says that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is cracking down on landlords and property managers. Earlier this year MBIE audited five separate property management companies and found some of the most basic requirements of being a landlord weren’t being met, says Vale. It has the power to prosecute landlords who breach basic housing standards. Property investor Andrew King, who is a RoomMate Cabins franchisee, points out that hiring a cabin is a flexible way of adding a room to a property if you have a suitable location on the site to have one. “Cabins can be $50 to $55 per week but can increase the rent by around $75 to $100,” says King.

11

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

ANALYSIS As told to Graham Hepburn

Buyers keen, but taking their time Mike Bayley Managing director Bayleys Corporation

T

he residential property market, in Auckland at least, is a bit like watching some of the competitors in the World Masters Games the city recently hosted — there’s still plenty of enthusiasm from participants, they just aren’t going as fast as they once did. The heat has finally come off the Auckland residential property sector after a frenetic three years, and would-be home purchasers are now becoming somewhat more sedate in their buying patterns. Loan-to-value restrictions are biting, and interestingly, and anecdotally, fewer overseas buyers are in the Auckland market, meaning first home buying locals are noticing considerably less competition. Sales volumes are lower than they were this time in 2016, meaning stock levels are somewhat higher than normal for autumn. That means more choice than usual, and again, less urgency for buyers. Prices? Well, we have noted that continuing record high immigration numbers — including substantial flows of Kiwis returning home from Britain and Australia bolstered by employment opportunities here — have generally sustained levels in the middle and higher price brackets. The current quarter, we forecast, will be dominated by two major domestic events that will, if history is anything to go by, momentarily distract national attention away from the New Zealand residential property market. Those events are the pending Lions rugby tour and, more importantly, the looming general election. We think those factors, compounded by the usual winter hibernation, will mean residential real estate activity levels are set to remain flat for the near future.

Chris Kennedy CEO Harcourts

T

he Auckland property market has cooled, with listings, auctions and sales all down compared to figures from a year ago. However, house prices are not yet in line with the new normal. Vendors still have high expectations and are not prepared to sell for anything less than top dollar. As a result, sales are declining and stock is building up. Good prices can be achieved, but vendors need to accept the property market has changed. After several years of rapid growth, sales are not as easy as they once were. This requires a mindset adjustment, both in members of the public and also those of us in the real estate industry. The slowing in the market is down to a number of factors, including a fall in the number of property investors in the wake of the tougher loan-to-value-ratio restrictions introduced last year by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Banks are also raising interest rates and being more stringent in their lending. However, on the flipside we still have record migration into Auckland — estimated at more than 500 arrivals a week — and there remains high demand for housing. This means there will not be the huge correction in the real estate market that some have been waiting and hoping for — and some commentators have been predicting. With demand remaining strong, there will be no ‘bubbles’ bursting here. However, houses will take longer to sell and prices may not meet first expectations. Smart vendors will adapt to the changing market.

Peter Thompson Managing director Barfoot & Thompson

F

or those seeking to buy a property that will be their home for the next five to seven years, the period between now and the general election in September represents a good time to commit. The low number of sales being made in the market means the pressure is off potential buyers to make quick decisions. Choice in terms of available property is high, probably double what it was this time last year, and the likelihood of any major increase in mortgage lending rates has receded. It’s still possible to lock in fixed mortgages for two years at close to 5 per cent. Prices have been stable for the past three months, and vendors are well aware that if they do wish to secure a sale, they need to be realistic over the pricing of their property. The scenario least likely to happen between now and September’s general election is a sharp decline in residential property prices. On the basis of some of the historical ratios on which house price affordability is measured, at current levels property is fully priced. What is missing from a scenario where downward pressure would begin to bear on prices, is any compelling reason for them to fall. In fact, with continued low mortgage rates, an increasing population and a robust economy, there is greater likelihood of prices rising again once the general election is behind us and the market can see certainty in the country’s future direction.

Graeme Fraser Head of agency operations Ray White NZ

T

he first quarter of 2017 brought about consistent sales results, with prices showing signs of levelling off together with inventory levels beginning to increase. The effect of this was apparent in April when sales numbers began to decline, days on market increased, and inventory levels began to rise. This has resulted in buyers having more choice together with a smaller buyer pool. And that meant competition for property is not at previous levels and prices have remained steady. In some areas across Auckland, they have declined. Auction rates — prior to auction and under the hammer — have fallen to under 65 per cent and this has resulted in properties being negotiated post-auction for a successful sale. As we look ahead, with the increased number of listings coming to the market and the depth of the buyer pool decreasing, buyers can expect more choice and sellers may have to consider the relative value of their property in competition with others. Auckland has seen the most change regarding pricing and inventory levels. Many regional areas are still providing good value for buyers and this has seen sales remain positive in the majority of areas outside Auckland. The Wellington region has continued to show positive gains in pricing and remains a strong sellers’ market. Canterbury has shown more balance, with the numbers of sales easing back slightly. There is no expected change in interest rates and with rents rising, this will be a positive sign for the investment market, with yields remaining strong.

Barry Thom and Grant Lynch Unlimited Potential Real Estate

Keith Niederer General manager LJ Hooker & Harveys Group

T

he Auckland real estate market has seen change with more properties listed for sale — up 39 per cent compared to April 2016, and the time to sell these houses stretching out to 35 days for April. This means Auckland buyers have more choice. Prices are also flattening with vendors needing to adjust to the new market. The volumes of sales have also been in decline, falling 33 per cent in April compared to March. Many Aucklanders are struggling to get on the housing ladder. And many Aucklanders who are already on the housing ladder are struggling to maintain their position as a homeowner. I believe many of these people will contemplate selling their home as the cost of living continues to increase due to rates, insurance, and possible interest rate changes. The banks will also be cautious about people with interest-only loans, as they are more comfortable in a market where prices are increasing. When prices start to decline, it will be a different story. Commuting to and from work will continue to be a hassle for many. This is often a big factor in families deciding to head for the regions for a quieter and often more affordable lifestyle. Properties to rent are in huge demand across the city. This will continue as more Aucklanders come to terms with not being in a position to purchase their own home. Rent increases could be higher than we have previously seen as landlords look to pass on the cost of rising interest rates, insurance, repairs and council rates.

D

oes anything affect decision making more than confusion? Our observation is that this is the malaise behind the current market sluggishness. Since Christmas there have been many reports and headlines indicating a slowing, particularly with regard to sale volumes. There’s no doubt that banks have taken a new and cautious approach to lending. This, as well as the more stringent LVRs, seems to have affected investment buying. In central Auckland, however, we have little or no indication of prices softening, just buyer attitude becoming more cautious. Add an extended summer and Easter/ school holiday period with three short weeks and it’s easy to understand why momentum has not built as in other years. Put the overlay of macro issues such as the Trump effect, North Korean sabre-rattling and bombing in Syria and you can understand why there has been something of a confused wait-and-see attitude. In the meantime, there are many factors that have not changed. Consequently house prices continue to firm in central Auckland. These factors include record immigration, rising land value and building cost, an overall shortage of homes and a shortage of labour to build them. Given the likes of the macro issues described above, it’s no wonder the rest of the world is becoming increasingly curious about the lifestyle we enjoy. If the locals can’t see it, the rest of the world can — and they want to live here. In short, the demand for a piece of Auckland/New Zealand is here to stay.

12

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

YOUR HOUSE VALUE A quarterly analysis of North Island property values

WHAT IS “E-VALUER”?

WHAT THE TABLES TELL YOU

E-Valuer is an estimate of market value and forms part of a QV.co.nz E-Valuer report. It is an automated model which provides an instant estimate of a property’s current market value based on recent sales of comparable properties in the immediate area and other factors. In the tables, an E-Valuer Report was run for each house in the suburb, and then a weighted average was calculated. The result is an average current value of all houses in the area. This may represent a more robust guide than median or average sale prices which measure only what happens to be selling in the area and can therefore be skewed, depending on which parts of the market is more active – the top or bottom end. Where there is insufficient data to calculate enough E-Valuer Reports in an area, value is not shown. While CoreLogic has used reasonable endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the information, the accuracy of the data relied upon to assess the estimated value is not guaranteed.

The data for these tables is provided by CoreLogic and gives a comprehensive summary of actual house sale prices and volumes for the periods and areas listed. The North Island areas detailed generally have at least 500 houses, and sufficient sales, to give meaningful results. Sections are excluded, as are mortgagee sales and “non-market” sales (such as sales to related parties and transfers to trusts). But flats and apartments are included, and are now included in this issue.. Three-monthly median prices have been used to give greater depth and accuracy. They are a useful indicator of trends where the number of sales is high, but offer only a very rough guide in areas where sales are low. For

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

Sales price in 3 months to

Median price in 3 months

Median price in 3 months

Median price in 3 months

Median price in 3 months

Median price in 3 months

Median price

median value at 30APR2017

median value at 31MAR2017

change in 3 months to

median value at 31MAR2016

change in year to 31MAR2017

median value at 31MAR2015

change in 2 years to

median value at market peak

change since 28FEB2017 in relation to CV market peak (CV date in brackets)

to 28FEB2017 (no. of sales in brackets)

to 31DEC2016 (no. of sales in brackets)

to 31MAR2016 (no. of sales in brackets)

to 31MAR2015 (no. of sales in brackets)

to 31MAR2014 (no. of sales in brackets)

change in 3 years to

31MAR2017

(31OCT2007)

(31OCT2007)

30.2% 33.0%

$531,200

39.6 % (2014 )

$841,275 (8 ) $656,000 (9 )

$867,000 (9 )

$581,400

62.6% 52.4%

36.0 % (2014 )

$665,850

$733,000 (8 )

$695,500 (22 ) $763,000 (5 )

$591,750 (22 ) $673,000 (10 )

31MAR2017

E-Valuer price

smaller areas, they should be treated with caution. The average sales price compared to CV (capital value set for councils every three years which may be used as a basis to apportion rates) gives a general guide to what properties may sell relative to a reader’s own CV (which you will find on your rates bill or council website). Negative values mean that on average properties are selling below their latest CV, while positive numbers mean they are selling above. Most CVs are set between July and September in the year given. The tables should be regarded as giving only broad indications of value. To determine market value of a particular property, visit QV.co.nz for the actual E-Valuer estimate and get advice from valuers and real estate agents.

31MAR2017

GREATER AUCKLAND RODNEY Arkles Bay Army Bay

$865,700 $890,500

$863,850 $885,800

Gulf Harbour

$858,950

$854,300

Helensville

$649,600

$650,100

Manly

$918,350

$917,750

1.6%

$663,700

$768,050 $788,300

12.5% 12.4%

3.6%

$753,250

13.4%

$654,500

30.5%

$572,400

49.2%

40.8 % (2014 )

$756,000 (23 )

$792,500 (26 )

$719,000 (59 )

0.0%

$590,200

10.1%

$505,300

28.7%

$363,100

79.0%

61.6 % (2014 )

$599,000 (13 )

$725,000 (14 )

$625,750 (22 )

3.2%

$831,650

10.4%

$720,900

27.3%

$570,700

60.8%

49.8 % (2014 )

$722,000 (21 )

$792,000 (21 )

1.8%

$494,750 (24 ) $615,500 (12 )

70.0% 6.6%

$633,000 (68 )

$597,000 (47 )

26.6%

$539,000 (25 )

$439,500 (20 )

36.3%

$719,000 (40 )

$565,000 (49 )

$552,000 (37 )

30.8%

Omaha

N/A

N/A

N/A

$1,346,600

N/A

$1,238,000

N/A

$1,016,900

N/A

37.1 % (2014 )

$1,450,000 (7 )

$1,240,500 (10 )

$1,355,000 (19 )

$1,045,000 (19 )

$814,500 (16 )

78.0%

Orewa

$911,500

$916,150

2.2%

$836,000

9.6%

$720,600

27.1%

$562,300

62.9%

46.1 % (2014 )

$932,000 (33 )

$890,500 (50 )

$815,000 (84 )

$709,500 (106 )

$672,000 (75 )

38.7%

Red Beach

$955,800

$958,950

2.6%

$848,200

13.1%

$747,800

28.2%

$573,800

67.1%

42.6 % (2014 )

$906,000 (16 )

$870,000 (25 )

$742,000 (43 )

$694,500 (54 )

$639,500 (43 )

41.7%

Silverdale

$1,164,700

$1,168,200

0.6%

$1,071,050

9.1%

$922,450

26.6%

N/A

N/A

36.3 % (2014 )

$1,086,500 (16 )

$1,096,000 (17 )

$999,000 (46 )

$869,250 (86 )

$835,000 (42 )

30.1% 48.4%

Snells Beach

$791,400

$791,150

3.7%

$684,850

15.5%

$583,400

35.6%

$528,300

49.8%

49.7 % (2014 )

$746,500 (26 )

$691,000 (26 )

$674,000 (25 )

$539,000 (49 )

$503,000 (29 )

Stanmore Bay

$838,900

$832,650

0.4%

$747,900

11.3%

$654,150

27.3%

$513,700

62.1%

40.8 % (2014 )

$701,000 (32 )

$752,500 (42 )

$654,000 (68 )

$572,000 (67 )

$546,500 (60 )

28.3%

Warkworth

$754,950

$751,850

2.7%

$668,000

12.6%

$564,800

33.1%

$492,200

52.8%

50.7 % (2014 )

$684,000 (21 )

$756,000 (28 )

$672,000 (29 )

$512,000 (42 )

$472,000 (41 )

44.9%

Wellsford

$522,700

$521,500

9.0%

$437,950

19.1%

$362,900

43.7%

$314,600

65.8%

61.0 % (2014 )

$518,000 (13 )

$484,000 (11 )

$409,000 (17 )

$356,000 (25 )

$292,500 (16 )

77.1%

$982,750 $1,397,100

$985,850

-0.2% -0.1%

$915,650 $1,286,150

7.7% 8.8%

$763,100

$1,399,650

$1,126,050

29.2% 24.3%

$558,800 $747,200

76.4% 87.3%

42.6 % (2014 ) 48.8 % (2014 )

$758,750 (14 ) $1,172,000 (8 )

$926,000 (27 ) $1,299,000 (15 )

$1,012,000 (47 ) $987,000 (17 )

$789,000 (59 ) $1,268,000 (9 )

$670,000 (51 ) $1,200,000 (15 )

13.2% -2.3%

NORTH SHORE Albany Bayswater Bayview

$845,250

$845,850

0.5%

$776,700

8.9%

$675,600

25.2%

$430,600

96.4%

40.2 % (2014 )

$753,000 (25 )

$771,000 (33 )

$754,500 (56 )

$660,000 (50 )

$571,000 (46 )

31.9%

Beach Haven

$869,950

$868,500

-2.5%

$810,850

7.1%

$706,050

23.0%

$451,700

92.3%

32.7 % (2014 )

$773,500 (26 )

$777,000 (39 )

$705,576 (58 )

$660,500 (70 )

$539,500 (58 )

43.4%

Belmont

$1,198,850

$1,191,100

0.0%

$1,107,550

7.5%

$953,100

25.0%

$604,700

97.0%

49.0 % (2014 )

$1,035,000 (5 )

$1,153,000 (10 )

$994,000 (15 )

$939,000 (23 )

$788,000 (12 )

31.3%

Birkdale

$774,650

$770,900

-4.1%

$729,100

5.7%

$636,850

21.0%

$397,100

94.1%

39.0 % (2014 )

$749,000 (31 )

$807,000 (50 )

$672,000 (51 )

$577,500 (50 )

$557,000 (59 )

34.5% 31.0%

Birkenhead

$1,068,800

$1,071,050

-0.9%

$984,300

8.8%

$849,750

26.0%

$565,700

89.3%

37.3 % (2014 )

$919,000 (29 )

$968,000 (41 )

$853,000 (68 )

$716,500 (60 )

$701,500 (50 )

Browns Bay

$1,057,450

$1,057,200

1.3%

$978,600

8.0%

$834,500

26.7%

$543,700

94.4%

31.0 % (2014 )

$1,005,000 (22 )

$869,000 (49 )

$975,500 (72 )

$852,000 (71 )

$712,000 (77 )

41.2%

Campbells Bay

$1,903,300

$1,862,950

0.1%

$1,727,550

7.8%

$1,514,050

23.0%

$1,028,600

81.1%

44.9 % (2014 )

$1,685,000 (3 )

$1,685,000 (9 )

$1,753,000 (16 )

$1,390,500 (18 )

$1,214,000 (20 )

38.8%

Castor Bay

$1,623,650

$1,640,300

1.1%

$1,492,250

9.9%

$1,308,000

25.4%

$940,500

74.4%

42.2 % (2014 )

$1,351,000 (15 )

$1,644,000 (29 )

$1,419,000 (33 )

$1,248,000 (39 )

$1,239,000 (29 )

9.0%

Chatswood

$1,280,400

$1,281,950

1.4%

$1,153,600

11.1%

$1,015,250

26.3%

$671,800

90.8%

38.6 % (2014 )

$1,125,000 (7 )

$1,225,750 (12 )

$1,137,000 (15 )

$967,000 (17 )

$814,500 (16 )

38.1%

Devonport

$1,656,700

$1,665,300

0.1%

$1,554,650

7.1%

$1,379,050

20.8%

$951,700

75.0%

36.0 % (2014 )

$1,300,000 (13 )

$1,372,000 (25 )

$1,240,500 (30 )

$1,158,000 (41 )

$1,193,500 (30 )

8.9%

Fairview Heights

$1,331,700

$1,326,150

-0.8%

$1,270,700

4.4%

$1,102,600

20.3%

N/A

N/A

44.3 % (2014 )

$1,257,050 (4 )

$1,345,000 (7 )

$1,280,000 (13 )

$1,130,000 (24 )

$944,500 (18 )

33.1%

Forrest Hill

$1,203,400

$1,195,750

1.4%

$1,112,950

7.4%

$981,600

21.8%

$551,200

116.9%

36.8 % (2014 )

$987,000 (28 )

$1,137,000 (54 )

$1,026,000 (37 )

$953,000 (48 )

$835,500 (44 )

18.1%

Glenfield

$876,050

$873,600

-0.3%

$816,100

7.0%

$711,450

22.8%

$429,700

103.3%

33.3 % (2014 )

$794,000 (57 )

$808,000 (68 )

$800,000 (93 )

$690,500 (110 )

$571,500 (110 )

38.9%

Greenhithe

$1,441,100

$1,442,500

-0.4%

$1,315,700

9.6%

$1,144,700

26.0%

$774,600

86.2%

37.8 % (2014 )

$1,403,500 (22 )

$1,488,000 (26 )

$1,204,000 (65 )

$1,130,000 (63 )

$941,000 (42 )

49.1%

Hauraki

$1,491,500

$1,493,600

-1.1%

$1,368,600

9.1%

$1,186,150

25.9%

$768,400

94.4%

42.8 % (2014 )

$1,269,000 (11 )

$1,502,000 (17 )

$1,309,500 (30 )

$964,900 (32 )

$1,017,000 (31 )

24.8%

Hillcrest

$1,036,400

$1,032,400

-0.4%

$982,500

5.1%

$856,550

20.5%

$490,500

110.5%

35.6 % (2014 )

$960,500 (32 )

$995,400 (52 )

$914,000 (51 )

$884,000 (47 )

$736,000 (40 )

30.5%

Mairangi Bay

$1,457,800

$1,459,700

0.7%

$1,372,600

6.3%

$1,192,600

22.4%

$746,200

95.6%

45.0 % (2014 )

$1,367,000 (15 )

$1,384,000 (28 )

$1,334,500 (32 )

$1,245,500 (33 )

$957,000 (30 )

42.8%

Milford

$1,414,250

$1,412,400

0.2%

$1,304,050

8.3%

$1,136,300

24.3%

$755,700

86.9%

38.5 % (2014 )

$1,243,500 (22 )

$1,140,000 (37 )

$991,000 (40 )

$1,052,000 (53 )

$716,000 (53 )

73.7%

Murrays Bay

$1,496,350

$1,510,300

2.1%

$1,400,800

7.8%

$1,186,850

27.3%

$789,200

91.4%

41.1 % (2014 )

$1,299,500 (12 )

$1,507,000 (17 )

$1,518,000 (12 )

$1,374,500 (22 )

$1,163,000 (30 )

11.7%

Narrow Neck

$1,517,600

$1,537,650

1.1%

$1,431,950

7.4%

$1,299,300

18.3%

$843,500

82.3%

24.8 % (2014 )

$1,413,500 (8 )

$1,304,500 (8 )

$1,201,500 (12 )

$987,000 (8 )

$592,000 (7 )

138.8%

Northcote

$1,069,500

$1,072,100

0.6%

$981,200

9.3%

$861,200

24.5%

$545,200

96.6%

40.3 % (2014 )

$881,500 (19 )

$885,500 (28 )

$930,000 (24 )

$892,500 (40 )

$698,000 (40 )

26.3%

Northcote Point

$1,376,450

$1,381,100

-0.2%

$1,289,750

7.1%

$1,157,850

19.3%

$738,300

87.1%

36.4 % (2014 )

$1,187,000 (5 )

$1,162,000 (11 )

$1,280,000 (6 )

$1,175,000 (16 )

$790,750 (10 )

50.1%

Northcross

$1,113,950

$1,105,950

0.5%

$1,028,000

7.6%

$874,200

26.5%

$567,600

94.8%

44.7 % (2014 )

$988,500 (11 )

$944,500 (12 )

$1,082,750 (24 )

$799,000 (19 )

$684,000 (21 )

44.5%

Oteha

$864,750

$866,250

-1.5%

$798,850

8.4%

$689,850

25.6%

$497,800

74.0%

37.9 % (2014 )

$496,500 (20 )

$725,500 (28 )

$705,000 (33 )

$695,000 (38 )

$636,000 (29 )

-21.9%

Pinehill

$1,356,700

$1,346,000

-0.4%

$1,246,350

8.0%

$1,022,050

31.7%

$733,900

83.4%

39.6 % (2014 )

$1,239,000 (5 )

$1,052,000 (18 )

$1,260,000 (17 )

$955,000 (20 )

$706,000 (8 )

75.5%

Rothesay Bay

$1,388,400

$1,395,350

0.3%

$1,290,250

8.1%

$1,114,700

25.2%

$738,500

88.9%

38.6 % (2014 )

$1,032,000 (9 )

$1,409,500 (14 )

$1,315,000 (15 )

$1,192,000 (25 )

$946,000 (13 )

9.1%

Schnapper Rock

$1,360,750

$1,341,300

-5.7%

$1,261,950

6.3%

$1,119,350

19.8%

$793,400

69.1%

36.3 % (2014 )

$1,422,500 (14 )

$1,515,000 (15 )

$1,411,250 (12 )

$971,500 (18 )

$987,000 (31 )

44.1%

Stanley Point

$1,950,850

$1,962,000

1.0%

$1,777,400

10.4%

$1,596,750

22.9%

$1,114,200

76.1%

36.4 % (2014 )

$1,895,000 (7 )

$1,543,500 (8 )

$2,057,500 (8 )

$2,050,000 (9 )

$1,480,000 (11 )

28.0%

Sunnynook

$1,032,450

$1,034,150

2.5%

$958,050

7.9%

$822,000

25.8%

$473,900

118.2%

36.9 % (2014 )

$944,500 (16 )

$949,000 (27 )

$880,500 (22 )

$831,000 (30 )

$675,500 (24 )

39.8%

Takapuna

$1,661,650

$1,659,250

-0.3%

$1,505,400

10.2%

$1,345,750

23.3%

$934,700

77.5%

43.4 % (2014 )

$1,248,500 (18 )

$1,367,000 (36 )

$1,180,000 (43 )

$1,280,000 (59 )

$1,053,800 (44 )

18.5%

Torbay

$1,032,950

$1,025,700

-0.3%

$956,050

7.3%

$823,900

24.5%

$554,300

85.0%

31.1 % (2014 )

$907,500 (46 )

$923,000 (74 )

$874,000 (75 )

$796,000 (103 )

$669,000 (77 )

35.7%

Totara Vale

$873,000

$873,900

-0.2%

$800,050

9.2%

$703,650

24.2%

$432,700

102.0%

36.6 % (2014 )

$765,000 (15 )

$845,000 (25 )

$762,000 (27 )

$710,000 (35 )

$608,000 (32 )

25.8%

Unsworth Heights

$1,013,550

$1,012,300

1.7%

$903,950

12.0%

$757,800

33.6%

$533,000

89.9%

39.8 % (2014 )

$912,000 (7 )

$897,000 (13 )

$824,000 (27 )

$757,000 (39 )

$671,188 (19 )

35.9%

Waiake

$1,375,450

$1,381,200

-1.6%

$1,287,900

7.2%

$1,127,050

22.6%

$818,500

68.7%

27.5 % (2014 )

$967,500 (6 )

$1,058,000 (10 )

$1,065,500 (12 )

$886,000 (11 )

$833,000 (8 )

16.1%

Windsor Park

$1,168,500

$1,167,700

0.7%

$1,030,200

13.3%

$894,600

30.5%

$583,900

100.0%

50.4 % (2014 )

$1,217,000 (7 )

$1,217,000 (7 )

$885,000 (11 )

$751,000 (14 )

$714,500 (14 )

70.3%

WAITAKERE Glen Eden Glendene

$730,400 $758,600

$733,300 $761,250

1.1% 0.7%

$671,700 $698,900

9.2% 8.9%

$560,750 $601,200

30.8% 26.6%

$359,000 $388,600

104.3% 95.9%

43.9 % (2014 ) 44.7 % (2014 )

$694,500 (63 ) $692,000 (21 )

$686,500 (112 ) $709,000 (23 )

$627,000 (105 ) $683,000 (28 )

$545,500 (102 ) $589,000 (31 )

$479,250 (92 ) $460,500 (34 )

44.9% 50.3%

Smart property decisions start here

13

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

30APR2017

31MAR2017

E-Valuer price change in 3 months to

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

median value at 31MAR2016

change in year to 31MAR2017

median value at 31MAR2015

change in 2 years to

31MAR2017

31MAR2017

E-Valuer estimate of E-Valuer price Sales price in 3 months to median value at change since 28FEB2017 in relation to CV market peak market peak (CV date in brackets) (31OCT2007)

Median price in 3 months to 28FEB2017

Median price in 3 months to 31DEC2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2015

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2014

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(31OCT2007)

Median price change in 3 years to 31MAR2017

Green Bay

$921,950

$923,000

1.2%

$835,050

10.5%

$742,500

24.3%

$471,300

95.8%

40.9 % (2014 )

$885,000 (9 )

$889,000 (11 )

$734,000 (14 )

$739,000 (15 )

$654,000 (10 )

35.3%

Henderson

$778,500

$783,300

0.2%

$711,500

10.1%

$607,350

29.0%

$401,800

94.9%

47.3 % (2014 )

$696,500 (94 )

$742,000 (121 )

$689,500 (176 )

$615,000 (215 )

$496,000 (158 )

40.4%

Hobsonville

$947,500

$950,550

0.4%

$860,300

10.5%

$743,900

27.8%

$511,000

86.0%

39.6 % (2014 )

$880,000 (29 )

$937,000 (47 )

$824,146 (40 )

$769,656 (69 )

$494,450 (52 )

78.0%

Kelston

$745,550

$745,050

1.3%

$689,500

8.1%

$587,850

26.7%

$341,600

118.1%

48.4 % (2014 )

$757,000 (6 )

$754,000 (13 )

$634,000 (17 )

$595,000 (23 )

$512,000 (13 )

47.9%

Laingholm

$839,950

$825,100

0.8%

$740,200

11.5%

$616,050

33.9%

$495,300

66.6%

39.8 % (2014 )

$819,000 (7 )

$857,000 (15 )

$709,500 (15 )

$580,000 (10 )

$507,013 (8 )

61.5%

Massey

$755,900

$752,950

0.0%

$701,900

7.3%

$588,600

27.9%

$382,900

96.6%

45.9 % (2014 )

$692,000 (87 )

$714,000 (107 )

$646,000 (143 )

$593,500 (152 )

$475,000 (108 )

45.7%

New Lynn

$762,200

$766,800

0.3%

$692,000

10.8%

$579,000

32.4%

$352,700

117.4%

54.1 % (2014 )

$708,000 (52 )

$689,000 (81 )

$615,500 (83 )

$557,000 (92 )

$450,500 (78 )

57.2%

Piha

$1,005,650

$1,009,000

2.5%

$907,000

11.2%

$770,550

30.9%

$768,700

31.3%

61.2 % (2014 )

$1,024,000 (5 )

$784,000 (7 )

$639,000 (7 )

$669,000 (10 )

$651,000 (6 )

57.3% 61.5%

Ranui

$691,700

$691,500

0.0%

$635,400

8.8%

$524,800

31.8%

$346,500

99.6%

48.9 % (2014 )

$662,000 (37 )

$642,500 (46 )

$614,000 (62 )

$541,750 (80 )

$410,000 (53 )

Sunnyvale

$728,250

$732,850

-0.7%

$673,650

8.8%

$570,500

28.5%

$369,600

98.3%

55.6 % (2014 )

$662,250 (16 )

$707,000 (17 )

$575,650 (23 )

$530,000 (37 )

$411,000 (24 )

61.1%

Swanson

$843,950

$839,500

-0.3%

$762,000

10.2%

$662,550

26.7%

$460,800

82.2%

49.3 % (2014 )

$864,000 (11 )

$803,000 (30 )

$721,500 (16 )

$647,000 (19 )

$522,750 (12 )

65.3%

Te Atatu Peninsula

$946,700

$947,450

-1.8%

$890,650

6.4%

$749,550

26.4%

$457,600

107.0%

44.8 % (2014 )

$920,750 (32 )

$922,000 (55 )

$856,500 (54 )

$732,500 (68 )

$609,750 (40 )

51.0%

Te Atatu South

$817,650

$821,600

-1.1%

$766,000

7.3%

$650,050

26.4%

$404,600

103.1%

46.8 % (2014 )

$696,000 (29 )

$774,500 (54 )

$736,000 (75 )

$682,000 (63 )

$512,000 (77 )

35.9%

Titirangi

$959,800

$959,550

0.5%

$874,950

9.7%

$757,050

26.7%

$520,900

84.2%

39.9 % (2014 )

$856,400 (40 )

$854,400 (56 )

$782,000 (69 )

$749,000 (70 )

$660,000 (66 )

29.8%

West Harbour

$1,022,300

$1,022,150

2.3%

$928,900

10.0%

$810,100

26.2%

$546,400

87.1%

54.0 % (2014 )

$822,000 (33 )

$915,000 (40 )

$759,500 (54 )

$744,000 (56 )

$646,500 (45 )

27.1%

AUCKLAND Auckland Central Avondale

$503,500

$498,550 $838,600

0.4%

$452,800 $761,100

10.1%

$785,000 (43 )

$435,000 (189 ) $785,500 (58 )

$372,000 (307 ) $758,000 (67 )

$311,500 (336 ) $632,000 (79 )

$253,000 (312 )

107.0%

54.1 % (2014 ) 41.4 % (2014 )

$402,000 (158 )

25.1%

$281,800 $405,200

76.9%

10.2%

$367,800 $670,550

35.5%

0.8%

$546,000 (68 )

58.9% 43.8%

Blockhouse Bay

$979,050

$981,950

-2.1%

$915,100

7.3%

$812,050

20.9%

$475,000

106.7%

43.5 % (2014 )

$894,500 (18 )

$871,000 (39 )

$869,000 (44 )

$746,000 (51 )

$642,000 (36 )

39.3%

Eden Terrace

$665,750

$664,550

0.3%

$590,500

12.5%

$496,500

33.8%

$361,500

83.8%

56.0 % (2014 )

$497,000 (17 )

$572,550 (16 )

$522,000 (33 )

$378,500 (38 )

$314,000 (21 )

58.3%

Ellerslie

$1,024,150

$1,032,250

0.2%

$938,350

10.0%

$804,050

28.4%

$490,000

110.7%

42.4 % (2014 )

$1,017,000 (33 )

$877,000 (37 )

$852,750 (46 )

$713,000 (53 )

$712,000 (48 )

42.8%

Epsom

$1,854,150

$1,855,550

0.7%

$1,745,900

6.3%

$1,523,350

21.8%

$908,100

104.3%

37.2 % (2014 )

$1,635,000 (29 )

$1,447,500 (52 )

$1,561,500 (56 )

$1,501,000 (87 )

$1,118,000 (67 )

46.2%

Freemans Bay

$1,312,450

$1,310,500

1.2%

$1,193,600

9.8%

$1,074,150

22.0%

$683,900

91.6%

39.3 % (2014 )

$1,110,000 (11 )

$1,127,500 (18 )

$810,000 (44 )

$1,236,000 (22 )

$930,000 (16 )

19.4%

Glen Innes

$943,150

$937,750

-2.4%

$898,450

4.4%

$753,750

24.4%

$418,500

124.1%

35.9 % (2014 )

$644,000 (10 )

$715,500 (12 )

$940,000 (24 )

$736,000 (20 )

$725,750 (12 )

-11.3%

Glendowie

$1,648,150

$1,654,900

0.1%

$1,513,100

9.4%

$1,367,200

21.0%

$817,800

102.4%

33.2 % (2014 )

$1,451,000 (14 )

$1,402,000 (21 )

$1,448,500 (38 )

$1,147,500 (30 )

$1,027,000 (35 )

41.3%

Grafton

$527,650

$528,200

0.2%

$474,650

11.3%

$408,400

29.3%

$317,900

66.2%

57.5 % (2014 )

$365,000 (23 )

$404,200 (16 )

$432,000 (35 )

$313,500 (32 )

$244,500 (28 )

49.3%

Greenlane

$1,488,300

$1,483,700

0.3%

$1,396,550

6.2%

$1,192,450

24.4%

$725,100

104.6%

28.1 % (2014 )

$1,195,250 (8 )

$1,255,500 (20 )

$1,337,000 (27 )

$1,172,000 (25 )

$846,500 (32 )

41.2%

Grey Lynn

$1,387,550

$1,380,350

1.3%

$1,248,100

10.6%

$1,139,700

21.1%

$654,100

111.0%

47.5 % (2014 )

$901,000 (35 )

$924,250 (50 )

$1,045,000 (52 )

$1,242,000 (65 )

$865,000 (62 )

4.2%

Herne Bay

$2,464,750

$2,470,200

0.5%

$2,206,850

11.9%

$1,986,850

24.3%

$1,466,000

68.5%

57.0 % (2014 )

$1,473,000 (3 )

$2,240,000 (9 )

$2,310,000 (21 )

$1,430,000 (22 )

$909,000 (10 )

62.0%

Hillsborough

$1,109,400

$1,114,300

0.4%

$1,027,750

8.4%

$905,900

23.0%

$580,000

92.1%

37.2 % (2014 )

$770,400 (18 )

$982,000 (25 )

$955,000 (36 )

$890,000 (37 )

$739,000 (31 )

4.2%

Kingsland

$1,113,050

$1,109,250

-1.7%

$1,051,300

5.5%

$933,250

18.9%

$538,300

106.1%

40.0 % (2014 )

$1,338,000 (5 )

$727,000 (18 )

$625,000 (12 )

$954,500 (15 )

$524,000 (12 )

155.3% 60.5%

$837,700

Kohimarama

$1,759,250

$1,770,900

0.5%

$1,508,600

17.4%

$1,344,100

31.8%

$934,600

89.5%

44.1 % (2014 )

$1,629,000 (10 )

$1,054,000 (11 )

$1,435,000 (29 )

$1,360,000 (27 )

$1,015,000 (32 )

Lynfield

$1,047,600

$1,046,550

0.7%

$971,750

7.7%

$851,150

23.0%

$542,100

93.1%

37.9 % (2014 )

$884,500 (6 )

$944,000 (11 )

$1,272,000 (11 )

$702,500 (18 )

$645,000 (17 )

37.1%

Meadowbank

$1,280,800

$1,287,650

0.5%

$1,185,600

8.6%

$1,046,950

23.0%

$606,600

112.3%

35.1 % (2014 )

$1,084,000 (9 )

$1,280,000 (16 )

$1,157,500 (34 )

$1,045,000 (21 )

$790,000 (24 )

37.2%

Mission Bay

$1,786,050

$1,792,850

-0.1%

$1,522,350

17.8%

$1,350,050

32.8%

$948,500

89.0%

46.2 % (2014 )

$977,000 (7 )

$1,064,500 (10 )

$1,537,000 (23 )

$1,240,000 (25 )

$938,500 (26 )

4.1%

Morningside

$1,031,900

$1,025,250

-0.4%

$956,450

7.2%

$820,150

25.0%

$507,900

101.9%

105.3 % (2014 )

$1,333,000 (7 )

$998,500 (10 )

$763,750 (22 )

$797,000 (18 )

$396,000 (14 )

236.6%

Mount Albert

$1,101,400

$1,094,600

-0.2%

$1,002,350

9.2%

$858,500

27.5%

$517,900

111.4%

45.2 % (2014 )

$728,500 (18 )

$1,026,500 (46 )

$853,000 (47 )

$702,000 (75 )

$589,500 (62 )

23.6%

Mount Eden

$1,451,800

$1,456,450

0.8%

$1,323,400

10.1%

$1,170,350

24.4%

$688,600

111.5%

46.5 % (2014 )

$1,162,000 (35 )

$1,414,444 (62 )

$1,161,000 (98 )

$1,047,500 (104 )

$926,500 (78 )

25.4%

Mount Roskill

$973,900

$974,600

-0.1%

$911,300

6.9%

$796,100

22.4%

$475,700

104.9%

42.4 % (2014 )

$937,000 (33 )

$889,000 (73 )

$844,000 (89 )

$768,500 (108 )

$667,500 (88 )

40.4%

Mount Wellington New Windsor

$797,700 $985,050

$799,000 $988,400

0.0% 2.0%

$730,950 $895,300

9.3% 10.4%

$625,300 $825,650

27.8% 19.7%

$385,800 $458,400

107.1% 115.6%

50.7 % (2014 ) 34.7 % (2014 )

$744,500 (52 ) $894,000 (15 )

$737,000 (84 ) $949,500 (24 )

$671,000 (89 ) $822,000 (23 )

$605,500 (128 ) $755,800 (19 )

$528,000 (98 ) $716,500 (22 )

41.0% 24.8%

Newmarket

$728,600

$720,100

1.5%

$669,850

7.5%

$566,050

27.2%

N/A

N/A

40.6 % (2014 )

$793,500 (4 )

$656,000 (7 )

$767,500 (4 )

$567,000 (9 )

$578,500 (20 )

37.2%

One Tree Hill

$1,075,950

$1,083,700

1.1%

$1,000,600

8.3%

$868,700

24.7%

$520,500

108.2%

36.8 % (2014 )

$1,108,000 (10 )

$1,137,000 (25 )

$1,047,000 (16 )

$823,000 (19 )

$635,000 (13 )

74.5%

Onehunga

$935,500

$940,250

0.4%

$867,600

8.4%

$753,950

24.7%

$464,300

102.5%

44.3 % (2014 )

$877,000 (54 )

$932,500 (78 )

$804,000 (69 )

$713,000 (83 )

$684,500 (58 )

28.1%

Oneroa

$1,273,800

$1,276,250

2.1%

$1,089,800

17.1%

$960,650

32.9%

$688,100

85.5%

64.3 % (2014 )

$962,000 (10 )

$1,118,000 (21 )

$940,000 (25 )

$777,000 (28 )

$749,000 (29 )

28.4%

Onetangi

$1,253,250

$1,238,900

1.4%

$1,078,600

14.9%

$981,150

26.3%

$739,500

67.5%

43.4 % (2014 )

$845,000 (3 )

$985,000 (3 )

$820,000 (17 )

$722,000 (13 )

$596,000 (11 )

41.8%

Orakei

$1,758,200

$1,755,300

0.7%

$1,659,500

5.8%

$1,393,650

25.9%

$988,300

77.6%

39.6 % (2014 )

$1,407,000 (14 )

$1,790,000 (19 )

$1,758,500 (24 )

$1,610,625 (22 )

$1,016,500 (22 )

38.4%

Ostend

$911,350

$916,750

1.9%

$814,850

12.5%

$702,200

30.6%

$515,500

77.8%

60.7 % (2014 )

$757,500 (7 )

$832,500 (12 )

$867,000 (13 )

$666,000 (12 )

$540,000 (28 )

40.3%

Otahuhu

$613,550

$613,700

0.7%

$561,750

9.2%

$478,900

28.1%

$298,700

105.5%

52.8 % (2014 )

$578,250 (28 )

$629,000 (29 )

$664,500 (30 )

$498,500 (52 )

$414,000 (29 )

39.7%

Panmure

$825,400

$824,950

-1.2%

$759,000

8.7%

$654,050

26.1%

$403,300

104.5%

50.1 % (2014 )

$544,000 (7 )

$755,000 (15 )

$891,000 (19 )

$646,000 (20 )

$521,825 (14 )

4.2%

Parnell

$1,609,700

$1,604,100

1.0%

$1,467,000

9.3%

$1,315,250

22.0%

$915,800

75.2%

40.7 % (2014 )

$1,644,000 (19 )

$1,585,000 (39 )

$1,586,000 (32 )

$1,030,000 (53 )

$740,000 (31 )

122.2%

Point Chevalier

$1,416,950

$1,420,300

0.4%

$1,311,150

8.3%

$1,102,400

28.8%

$667,500

112.8%

42.0 % (2014 )

$1,466,000 (20 )

$1,168,500 (25 )

$1,248,500 (32 )

$980,000 (28 )

$892,000 (33 )

64.3%

Point England

$895,200

$891,000

-0.8%

$837,700

6.4%

$710,150

25.5%

$397,500

124.2%

36.5 % (2014 )

$765,000 (3 )

$878,500 (8 )

$857,000 (7 )

$689,000 (9 )

$583,000 (5 )

31.2%

Ponsonby

$1,710,050

$1,714,400

-0.4%

$1,553,500

10.4%

$1,417,900

20.9%

$853,500

100.9%

38.7 % (2014 )

$1,520,000 (8 )

$1,643,500 (20 )

$1,485,000 (26 )

$1,542,500 (32 )

$1,460,000 (22 )

4.1%

Remuera

$2,052,300

$2,051,150

2.2%

$1,828,750

12.2%

$1,687,100

21.6%

$1,058,800

93.7%

41.1 % (2014 )

$1,380,000 (41 )

$1,690,000 (108 )

$1,615,500 (132 )

$1,525,000 (157 )

$1,225,000 (137 )

12.7%

Royal Oak

$1,135,350

$1,142,100

2.3%

$1,057,450

8.0%

$915,800

24.7%

$561,700

103.3%

46.3 % (2014 )

$696,500 (6 )

$838,500 (14 )

$1,037,000 (23 )

$781,000 (20 )

$683,500 (22 )

1.9%

Saint Johns

$1,195,700

$1,187,150

0.6%

$1,082,200

9.7%

$947,800

25.3%

$600,800

97.6%

41.4 % (2014 )

$934,022 (10 )

$1,003,500 (17 )

$974,500 (22 )

$935,000 (15 )

$731,000 (26 )

27.8%

Saint Marys Bay

$2,228,900

$2,240,800

0.6%

$2,002,250

11.9%

$1,820,750

23.1%

$1,212,900

84.7%

20.8 % (2014 )

$1,800,000 (2 )

$1,885,000 (5 )

$1,265,000 (14 )

$2,411,000 (14 )

$1,866,500 (8 )

-3.6%

Sandringham

$1,079,500

$1,070,100

-2.1%

$1,006,050

6.4%

$875,550

22.2%

$504,400

112.2%

40.0 % (2014 )

$946,000 (19 )

$987,000 (43 )

$998,250 (36 )

$682,500 (44 )

$680,825 (42 )

38.9%

St Heliers

$1,725,700

$1,723,850

0.0%

$1,517,700

13.6%

$1,364,300

26.4%

$927,200

85.9%

47.0 % (2014 )

$1,359,500 (26 )

$1,580,000 (43 )

$1,375,000 (70 )

$1,167,500 (72 )

$1,100,000 (57 )

23.6%

Stonefields

$1,364,100

$1,367,850

2.5%

$1,222,400

11.9%

$1,044,600

30.9%

N/A

N/A

39.8 % (2014 )

$1,440,000 (10 )

$1,428,750 (14 )

$1,119,000 (24 )

$893,000 (56 )

$903,000 (38 )

59.5%

Surfdale

$877,350

$876,950

2.2%

$793,150

10.6%

$677,100

29.5%

$516,800

69.7%

66.6 % (2014 )

$888,000 (11 )

$1,065,000 (12 )

$813,000 (16 )

$820,000 (17 )

$520,000 (18 )

70.8%

Three Kings

$1,003,600

$1,008,350

1.4%

$938,150

7.5%

$801,200

25.9%

$514,100

96.1%

40.4 % (2014 )

$770,000 (7 )

$779,500 (8 )

$640,000 (9 )

$594,000 (10 )

$646,000 (5 )

19.2%

Wai O Taiki Bay

$1,161,500

$1,161,000

-3.6%

$1,104,250

5.1%

$950,500

22.1%

$528,600

119.6%

72.1 % (2014 )

$1,256,000 (1 )

$1,565,500 (2 )

$1,072,500 (6 )

$1,797,500 (2 )

$753,000 (3 )

66.8%

Waterview

$940,000

$936,450

0.2%

$856,100

9.4%

$759,150

23.4%

$453,200

106.6%

19.2 % (2014 )

$705,000 (7 )

$1,075,000 (19 )

$849,000 (13 )

$913,000 (16 )

$660,500 (10 )

6.7%

Westmere

$1,862,150

$1,835,050

1.4%

$1,634,150

12.3%

$1,478,450

24.1%

$869,900

110.9%

30.3 % (2014 )

$1,589,000 (9 )

$1,815,000 (18 )

$1,590,000 (15 )

$1,395,000 (14 )

$1,207,000 (21 )

31.6%

MANUKAU Beachlands Botany Downs

$1,216,300

$1,210,500

1.9%

$1,041,750

16.2%

$905,350

33.7%

$659,700

83.5%

41.9 % (2014 )

$1,208,500 (22 )

$1,124,500 (40 )

$1,002,000 (27 )

$885,444 (35 )

$831,500 (27 )

45.3%

$1,001,250

$998,450

-0.9%

$945,050

5.7%

$803,000

24.3%

$522,600

91.1%

34.8 % (2014 )

$896,000 (12 )

$939,000 (19 )

$914,000 (23 )

$777,750 (44 )

$692,000 (31 )

29.5%

Bucklands Beach

$1,298,550

$1,295,050

0.1%

$1,162,600

11.4%

$992,400

30.5%

$650,000

99.2%

42.4 % (2014 )

$962,500 (20 )

$1,144,500 (34 )

$1,020,000 (43 )

$867,000 (53 )

$846,250 (32 )

13.7%

Burswood

$936,400

$938,850

2.0%

$877,050

7.0%

$778,950

20.5%

$474,700

97.8%

43.4 % (2014 )

$907,000 (5 )

$869,500 (8 )

$830,000 (8 )

$758,000 (8 )

$634,000 (11 )

43.1%

Clendon Park

$556,800

$560,650

0.4%

$525,800

6.6%

$404,300

38.7%

$293,100

91.3%

54.0 % (2014 )

$548,500 (15 )

$549,750 (26 )

$518,000 (41 )

$380,500 (72 )

$329,000 (59 )

66.7%

Clover Park

$660,500

$664,900

1.5%

$609,050

9.2%

$486,550

36.7%

$335,700

98.1%

61.5 % (2014 )

$649,000 (9 )

$644,000 (17 )

$555,000 (28 )

$480,000 (27 )

$434,000 (29 )

49.5%

Cockle Bay

$1,275,150

$1,283,900

0.2%

$1,141,450

12.5%

$1,007,400

27.4%

$694,800

84.8%

41.9 % (2014 )

$1,220,000 (9 )

$1,172,000 (17 )

$1,102,000 (23 )

$871,500 (24 )

$794,500 (22 )

53.6%

Dannemora

$1,480,800

$1,473,650

0.8%

$1,285,000

14.7%

$1,107,650

33.0%

$718,200

105.2%

54.2 % (2014 )

$1,575,000 (5 )

$1,406,000 (12 )

$1,260,000 (14 )

$1,080,000 (21 )

$1,021,000 (12 )

54.3%

East Tamaki

$884,400

$882,950

2.1%

$810,950

8.9%

$671,900

31.4%

$471,000

87.5%

55.5 % (2014 )

$1,037,000 (17 )

$928,000 (33 )

$795,000 (22 )

$662,000 (37 )

$625,500 (36 )

65.8%

East Tamaki Heights

$1,334,650

$1,318,600

-0.7%

$1,220,350

8.1%

$1,011,450

30.4%

$697,600

89.0%

42.5 % (2014 )

$1,119,500 (17 )

$1,220,000 (13 )

$1,170,000 (15 )

$976,000 (26 )

$865,000 (29 )

29.4%

Eastern Beach

$1,556,700

$1,544,600

-0.2%

$1,348,000

14.6%

$1,148,950

34.4%

$792,500

94.9%

65.7 % (2014 )

$1,980,000 (4 )

$1,109,000 (3 )

$1,365,000 (3 )

$1,035,000 (5 )

$1,283,000 (8 )

54.3%

Farm Cove

$1,348,800

$1,354,000

-3.5%

$1,226,250

10.4%

$1,070,950

26.4%

$674,900

100.6%

38.6 % (2014 )

$1,217,000 (7 )

$1,443,000 (10 )

$851,000 (11 )

$705,000 (11 )

$912,000 (7 )

33.4%

Smart property decisions start here

14

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

30APR2017

31MAR2017

E-Valuer price change in 3 months to

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

median value at 31MAR2016

change in year to 31MAR2017

median value at 31MAR2015

change in 2 years to

31MAR2017

E-Valuer estimate of E-Valuer price Sales price in 3 months to median value at change since 28FEB2017 in relation to CV market peak market peak (CV date in brackets)

31MAR2017

(31OCT2007)

Median price in 3 months to 28FEB2017

Median price in 3 months to 31DEC2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2015

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2014

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(31OCT2007)

Median price change in 3 years to 31MAR2017

Favona

$664,950

$664,650

0.7%

$612,700

8.5%

$490,300

35.6%

$346,600

91.8%

48.6 % (2014 )

$608,000 (12 )

$719,000 (19 )

$598,000 (20 )

$499,000 (27 )

$392,000 (14 )

55.1%

Flat Bush

$1,045,950

$1,044,700

-1.7%

$987,400

5.8%

$796,550

31.2%

$582,800

79.3%

44.9 % (2014 )

$979,000 (77 )

$1,012,000 (102 )

$959,500 (116 )

$837,000 (227 )

$751,500 (204 )

30.3%

Golflands

$1,090,200

$1,086,900

-0.8%

$1,018,850

6.7%

$817,000

33.0%

$551,600

97.0%

38.4 % (2014 )

$998,500 (8 )

$1,057,500 (16 )

$834,000 (13 )

$630,000 (17 )

$664,000 (25 )

50.4%

Goodwood Heights

$854,750

$862,050

-2.9%

$812,350

6.1%

$692,100

24.6%

$526,300

63.8%

31.2 % (2014 )

$758,000 (14 )

$688,000 (14 )

$647,000 (14 )

$631,500 (20 )

$516,675 (22 )

46.7%

Half Moon Bay

$1,229,800

$1,229,150

-0.7%

$1,102,200

11.5%

$929,850

32.2%

$619,100

98.5%

40.4 % (2014 )

$832,000 (21 )

$908,000 (24 )

$913,000 (37 )

$772,000 (43 )

$823,500 (38 )

1.0%

Highland Park

$933,450

$933,500

-0.1%

$860,400

8.5%

$710,450

31.4%

$472,900

97.4%

39.4 % (2014 )

$875,750 (6 )

$814,500 (14 )

$820,500 (12 )

$690,000 (26 )

$520,000 (17 )

68.4%

Howick

$988,300

$989,300

-0.7%

$891,550

11.0%

$777,600

27.2%

$512,000

93.2%

39.3 % (2014 )

$840,500 (42 )

$922,500 (48 )

$837,000 (59 )

$758,000 (78 )

$617,000 (49 )

36.2%

Mangere

$666,500

$667,550

-0.6%

$624,350

6.9%

$498,600

33.9%

$339,800

96.5%

47.1 % (2014 )

$632,000 (27 )

$690,000 (35 )

$613,000 (44 )

$489,500 (50 )

$416,043 (36 )

51.9%

Mangere Bridge

$986,000

$984,500

0.1%

$877,900

12.1%

$741,400

32.8%

$455,700

116.0%

45.0 % (2014 )

$929,000 (15 )

$987,000 (29 )

$774,500 (24 )

$715,500 (32 )

$549,000 (31 )

69.2%

Mangere East

$646,550

$649,650

0.1%

$589,050

10.3%

$477,100

36.2%

$317,000

104.9%

64.1 % (2014 )

$617,750 (24 )

$644,000 (50 )

$594,000 (63 )

$456,500 (64 )

$392,750 (66 )

57.3%

Manurewa

$640,600

$642,650

-1.3%

$600,300

7.1%

$479,850

33.9%

$336,800

90.8%

52.6 % (2014 )

$599,250 (112 )

$594,000 (119 )

$563,000 (195 )

$447,000 (230 )

$375,000 (222 )

59.8% 46.2%

Manurewa East

$611,600

$611,700

-1.5%

$556,650

9.9%

$465,050

31.5%

$321,400

90.3%

44.8 % (2014 )

$546,000 (4 )

$653,000 (16 )

$527,500 (14 )

$445,500 (16 )

$373,500 (19 )

Maraetai

$1,280,150

$1,283,450

2.4%

$1,126,650

13.9%

$964,900

33.0%

$748,500

71.5%

50.5 % (2014 )

$1,259,000 (4 )

$1,180,000 (17 )

$1,120,000 (11 )

$887,000 (15 )

$892,500 (10 )

41.1%

Mellons Bay

$1,625,050

$1,613,150

-0.5%

$1,453,000

11.0%

$1,290,300

25.0%

$812,100

98.6%

49.4 % (2014 )

$1,357,000 (7 )

$1,324,000 (15 )

$1,489,500 (14 )

$1,172,000 (28 )

$1,013,250 (10 )

33.9%

Northpark

$1,144,250

$1,143,100

-4.4%

$1,100,450

3.9%

$925,800

23.5%

$585,100

95.4%

38.9 % (2014 )

$1,079,500 (4 )

$987,000 (15 )

$1,087,000 (21 )

$936,750 (34 )

$822,500 (18 )

31.2%

Otara

$572,500

$576,900

-1.8%

$527,400

9.4%

$415,150

39.0%

$280,300

105.8%

65.1 % (2014 )

$546,000 (19 )

$593,000 (23 )

$510,500 (32 )

$397,000 (42 )

$325,500 (33 )

67.7%

Pakuranga

$957,900

$953,800

-1.0%

$854,250

11.7%

$724,600

31.6%

$467,900

103.8%

56.1 % (2014 )

$869,000 (25 )

$944,000 (31 )

$735,000 (29 )

$702,000 (53 )

$591,000 (48 )

47.0%

Pakuranga Heights

$941,800

$936,850

0.3%

$848,950

10.4%

$717,800

30.5%

$448,500

108.9%

49.1 % (2014 )

$891,000 (19 )

$874,000 (35 )

$793,500 (34 )

$687,000 (30 )

$624,500 (41 )

42.7%

Papatoetoe

$708,850

$711,050

0.6%

$639,600

11.2%

$538,750

32.0%

$368,200

93.1%

59.2 % (2014 )

$682,070 (86 )

$658,000 (149 )

$614,000 (176 )

$510,000 (231 )

$434,750 (204 )

56.9%

Randwick Park

$603,650

$607,400

0.0%

$551,350

10.2%

$435,450

39.5%

$323,600

87.7%

55.3 % (2014 )

$591,500 (16 )

$605,500 (26 )

$579,000 (23 )

$378,500 (36 )

$346,000 (27 )

71.0%

Shelly Park

$1,265,900

$1,274,300

1.3%

$1,147,900

11.0%

$1,017,700

25.2%

$706,300

80.4%

44.6 % (2014 )

$956,000 (10 )

$989,000 (8 )

$1,043,500 (8 )

$902,000 (9 )

$852,000 (15 )

12.2%

Somerville

$1,205,850

$1,203,100

-3.1%

$1,122,450

7.2%

$973,600

23.6%

$633,800

89.8%

39.1 % (2014 )

$1,039,000 (9 )

$1,073,500 (16 )

$1,187,000 (21 )

$951,000 (28 )

$885,500 (24 )

17.3%

Sunnyhills

$1,279,750

$1,274,350

-3.2%

$1,168,100

9.1%

$1,016,250

25.4%

$638,900

99.5%

40.7 % (2014 )

$1,114,000 (9 )

$1,314,250 (16 )

$1,202,000 (17 )

$1,043,000 (20 )

$792,000 (13 )

40.7%

The Gardens

$1,003,950

$1,008,100

-5.9%

$941,950

7.0%

$790,450

27.5%

$620,800

62.4%

33.9 % (2014 )

$982,000 (8 )

$958,000 (15 )

$901,000 (15 )

$745,000 (15 )

$726,000 (13 )

35.3%

Totara Heights

$825,300

$827,250

-1.4%

$777,600

6.4%

$664,400

24.5%

$487,300

69.8%

45.2 % (2014 )

$841,944 (12 )

$877,000 (13 )

$679,000 (11 )

$658,750 (20 )

$612,000 (13 )

37.6%

Wattle Downs

$791,250

$791,200

-0.3%

$748,400

5.7%

$621,750

27.3%

$449,400

76.1%

35.4 % (2014 )

$760,500 (34 )

$746,500 (46 )

$760,000 (53 )

$646,000 (53 )

$516,000 (36 )

47.4%

Weymouth

$635,650

$633,900

1.8%

$577,050

9.9%

$449,800

40.9%

$330,600

91.7%

60.5 % (2014 )

$624,000 (19 )

$605,500 (52 )

$567,850 (56 )

$435,000 (69 )

$385,250 (48 )

62.0%

PAPAKURA/FRANKLIN Clarks Beach Conifer Grove

$776,800

$774,200

2.3%

$696,650

11.1%

$611,500

26.6%

$528,300

46.5%

37.1 % (2014 )

$739,000 (13 )

$689,000 (10 )

$567,500 (12 )

$612,500 (8 )

$462,000 (7 )

60.0%

$802,200

$797,250

0.7%

$719,050

10.9%

$610,750

30.5%

$458,600

73.8%

57.1 % (2014 )

$639,000 (7 )

$774,000 (17 )

$677,000 (17 )

$592,500 (24 )

$647,000 (15 )

-1.2%

Manukau

$539,350

$543,300

-0.6%

$480,600

13.0%

$420,000

29.4%

$304,500

78.4%

42.1 % (2014 )

$359,500 (4 )

$531,250 (10 )

$465,000 (21 )

$350,000 (27 )

$290,000 (19 )

24.0%

Opaheke

$697,000

$696,800

0.1%

$649,500

7.3%

$525,500

32.6%

$391,900

77.8%

48.7 % (2014 )

$739,000 (12 )

$713,444 (20 )

$654,500 (19 )

$544,500 (22 )

$399,500 (11 )

85.0%

Pahurehure

$775,600

$769,150

3.2%

$704,450

9.2%

$584,750

31.5%

$444,100

73.2%

46.9 % (2014 )

$731,000 (15 )

$731,000 (21 )

$661,500 (24 )

$603,500 (16 )

$514,000 (23 )

42.2%

Papakura

$606,550

$608,900

0.5%

$550,200

10.7%

$432,500

40.8%

$324,400

87.7%

60.9 % (2014 )

$580,000 (97 )

$580,000 (152 )

$559,500 (170 )

$422,000 (176 )

$354,000 (107 )

63.8%

Pukekohe

$665,550

$665,350

0.5%

$609,000

9.3%

$522,200

27.4%

$406,400

63.7%

38.3 % (2014 )

$619,000 (113 )

$639,000 (138 )

$576,750 (156 )

$499,000 (146 )

$472,000 (145 )

31.1%

Red Hill

$596,550

$599,150

2.5%

$539,550

11.0%

$435,000

37.7%

$336,700

77.9%

46.9 % (2014 )

$608,000 (7 )

$554,500 (18 )

$503,000 (13 )

$443,000 (16 )

$257,500 (8 )

136.1%

Rosehill

$673,450

$676,000

-1.0%

$623,100

8.5%

$497,800

35.8%

$374,300

80.6%

57.1 % (2014 )

$636,000 (9 )

$638,000 (24 )

$552,500 (22 )

$444,750 (20 )

$609,000 (19 )

4.4%

Takanini

$713,150

$714,650

1.9%

$638,850

11.9%

$524,400

36.3%

$393,200

81.8%

49.0 % (2014 )

$705,500 (36 )

$715,100 (60 )

$617,000 (47 )

$558,500 (118 )

$452,000 (67 )

56.1%

Waiuku

$602,900

$602,850

1.1%

$543,500

10.9%

$439,600

37.1%

$377,600

59.7%

47.8 % (2014 )

$588,000 (44 )

$602,000 (51 )

$539,000 (71 )

$388,500 (98 )

$396,000 (53 )

48.5%

$284,200 $171,650

$281,650

7.3%

$200,800 $136,450

40.3%

$224,200 $177,800

25.6%

38.0 % (2014 ) 18.7 % (2016 )

$267,500 (26 )

$236,000 (47 ) $159,641 (20 )

$190,000 (40 )

7.4%

$226,350 $138,100

24.4%

$170,750

$190,322 (16 ) $141,000 (7 )

$223,000 (9 ) $146,000 (5 )

20.0% 13.7%

Kaitaia

$207,950

$206,100

7.3%

$177,150

16.3%

$163,650

25.9%

$214,200

-3.8%

11.3 % (2016 )

$174,000 (32 )

$173,750 (42 )

$158,500 (22 )

$165,000 (22 )

$142,800 (22 )

21.8%

Kamo

$459,800

$458,100

4.1%

$387,050

18.4%

$335,400

36.6%

$360,900

26.9%

29.7 % (2015 )

$460,500 (58 )

$414,000 (71 )

$360,500 (72 )

$329,000 (55 )

$324,000 (46 )

42.1%

Kensington

$418,950

$415,350

1.6%

$354,100

17.3%

$298,200

39.3%

$344,000

20.7%

37.4 % (2015 )

$414,000 (31 )

$382,000 (39 )

$346,700 (45 )

$301,500 (40 )

$277,500 (30 )

49.2%

Kerikeri

$618,200

$612,500

0.6%

$534,200

14.7%

$470,550

30.2%

$508,700

20.4%

9.8 % (2016 )

$572,250 (50 )

$572,000 (69 )

$478,000 (82 )

$431,750 (50 )

$424,000 (33 )

35.0%

N/A

$767,300

2.0%

$667,500

15.0%

$586,000

30.9%

$552,800

38.8%

48.4 % (2014 )

$770,000 (19 )

$671,000 (23 )

$647,000 (31 )

$456,500 (32 )

$445,500 (34 )

72.8%

Maunu

$565,150

$566,800

3.4%

$492,300

15.1%

$438,450

29.3%

$463,100

22.4%

32.6 % (2015 )

$469,500 (10 )

$482,000 (9 )

$499,500 (20 )

$397,000 (17 )

$447,000 (23 )

5.0%

Morningside

$359,600

$359,250

4.3%

$303,100

18.5%

$250,000

43.7%

$279,200

28.7%

24.4 % (2015 )

$336,500 (12 )

$347,000 (15 )

$308,000 (24 )

$236,000 (14 )

$224,100 (3 )

50.2%

One Tree Point

$685,650

$692,300

3.7%

$564,650

22.6%

$513,750

34.8%

$574,000

20.6%

41.7 % (2015 )

$535,000 (10 )

$604,000 (21 )

$582,000 (18 )

$454,620 (20 )

$441,500 (10 )

21.2%

Onerahi

$421,550

$420,000

4.2%

$354,850

18.4%

$298,250

40.8%

$335,100

25.3%

28.0 % (2015 )

$393,000 (32 )

$336,500 (49 )

$314,000 (53 )

$294,000 (42 )

$256,250 (38 )

53.4%

Raumanga

$290,250

$291,200

5.8%

$244,550

19.1%

$194,950

49.4%

$244,800

19.0%

35.9 % (2015 )

$270,000 (23 )

$274,000 (25 )

$251,000 (37 )

$167,000 (15 )

$184,000 (9 )

46.7%

Ruakaka

$527,100

$531,950

4.9%

$425,850

24.9%

$372,300

42.9%

$397,700

33.8%

46.8 % (2015 )

$527,000 (25 )

$527,000 (13 )

$346,000 (17 )

$323,750 (18 )

$295,000 (21 )

78.6%

Tikipunga

$368,850

$368,950

3.3%

$306,200

20.5%

$259,200

42.3%

$296,900

24.3%

28.3 % (2015 )

$341,000 (30 )

$354,500 (40 )

$287,500 (37 )

$275,000 (35 )

$244,000 (23 )

39.8%

Whangarei Heads

$617,250

$619,450

-0.6%

$530,450

16.8%

$478,350

29.5%

$541,600

14.4%

27.5 % (2015 )

$619,000 (13 )

$627,000 (7 )

$510,000 (11 )

$385,000 (8 )

$322,000 (6 )

92.2%

Whau Valley

$419,050

$416,350

3.8%

$343,850

21.1%

$295,700

40.8%

$343,700

21.1%

46.5 % (2015 )

$530,000 (4 )

$354,000 (11 )

$304,000 (11 )

$252,000 (11 )

$185,000 (13 )

186.5%

COROMANDEL/HAURAKI/MATAMATA Matamata $437,100

$435,000

2.2%

26.4%

35.9% 7.7%

27.1 % (2014 )

$452,000 (41 ) $430,500 (14 )

$413,500 (58 ) $424,000 (23 )

$327,000 (75 ) $384,000 (28 )

$284,000 (51 ) $345,000 (13 )

$262,000 (51 )

4.6%

$320,200 $584,500

39.4 % (2015 )

$629,300

$316,900 $497,800

37.3%

$641,550

$359,900 $563,550

20.9%

Matarangi

$391,750 (16 )

72.5% 9.9%

Morrinsville

$436,550

$435,400

2.5%

$346,350

25.7%

$311,500

39.8%

$315,400

38.0%

47.1 % (2015 )

$405,500 (42 )

$406,000 (46 )

$328,000 (74 )

$281,000 (57 )

$270,000 (32 )

50.2%

Paeroa

$335,200

$328,450

5.3%

$259,550

26.5%

$215,000

52.8%

$233,400

40.7%

60.0 % (2015 )

$316,500 (6 )

$322,500 (20 )

$251,000 (47 )

$241,500 (24 )

$186,000 (13 )

70.2%

Pauanui

$785,800

$780,300

2.1%

$683,000

14.2%

$632,000

23.5%

$684,500

14.0%

33.3 % (2014 )

$652,000 (34 )

$643,000 (52 )

$528,000 (54 )

$500,000 (41 )

$415,000 (32 )

57.1%

Tairua

$658,250

$643,450

2.6%

$526,750

22.2%

$483,500

33.1%

$537,000

19.8%

40.2 % (2014 )

$525,000 (19 )

$575,500 (26 )

$407,000 (23 )

$403,875 (22 )

$421,500 (18 )

24.6%

THE REGIONS

WHANGAREI/NORTHLAND Dargaville Kaikohe

Mangawhai Heads

23.6%

11.7%

25.1%

-4.0%

$166,000 (23 )

$123,000 (17 )

Te Aroha

$377,050

$371,100

4.8%

$287,200

29.2%

$258,350

43.6%

$266,200

39.4%

51.2 % (2015 )

$367,000 (21 )

$344,000 (23 )

$274,000 (35 )

$262,650 (22 )

$213,000 (17 )

72.3%

Thames

$464,950

$465,850

4.1%

$380,450

22.4%

$335,800

38.7%

$336,800

38.3%

53.0 % (2014 )

$468,000 (42 )

$454,500 (38 )

$365,000 (47 )

$325,000 (63 )

$295,500 (42 )

58.4%

Waihi Whangamata

$343,200 $717,700

$341,150 $710,700

3.9% 4.7%

$271,250 $585,450

25.8% 21.4%

$226,250 $502,900

50.8% 41.3%

$256,700 $533,000

32.9% 33.3%

51.8 % (2015 ) 46.9 % (2014 )

$307,500 (26 ) $667,000 (52 )

$310,000 (33 ) $650,500 (60 )

$245,000 (64 ) $542,500 (78 )

$222,500 (32 ) $464,000 (75 )

$208,250 (24 ) $427,845 (72 )

47.7% 55.9%

Whitianga

$615,550

$605,950

5.1%

$500,050

21.2%

$440,250

37.6%

$476,200

27.2%

38.5 % (2014 )

$469,000 (49 )

$451,000 (67 )

$408,000 (83 )

$365,000 (72 )

$339,500 (56 )

38.1%

Beerescourt

$365,150 $606,800

$363,550 $606,300

2.6% 2.9%

$329,950 $552,000

10.2% 9.8%

$253,800 $455,950

43.2% 33.0%

$257,900 $432,700

41.0% 40.1%

15.6 % (2015 ) 23.9 % (2015 )

$375,000 (9 ) $502,000 (6 )

$366,000 (12 ) $509,000 (8 )

$330,500 (18 ) $754,500 (4 )

$261,000 (11 ) $384,000 (17 )

$250,000 (11 ) $335,000 (13 )

50.0% 49.9%

Chartwell

$524,000

$522,700

-0.3%

$471,050

11.0%

$376,900

38.7%

$364,300

43.5%

24.4 % (2015 )

$479,000 (20 )

$492,500 (34 )

$473,000 (59 )

$359,000 (39 )

$334,000 (28 )

43.4%

Claudelands

$510,000

$506,450

2.7%

$452,850

11.8%

$367,100

38.0%

$352,200

43.8%

25.5 % (2015 )

$559,000 (9 )

$559,500 (14 )

$405,000 (28 )

$332,500 (14 )

$412,000 (11 )

35.7%

Dinsdale

$468,500

$468,650

1.2%

$425,650

10.1%

$331,500

41.4%

$332,400

41.0%

22.1 % (2015 )

$470,500 (31 )

$464,000 (49 )

$424,000 (55 )

$321,000 (42 )

$344,000 (27 )

36.8%

Enderley

$376,250

$374,100

-0.7%

$333,700

12.1%

$268,050

39.6%

$270,100

38.5%

26.3 % (2015 )

$402,000 (8 )

$474,750 (8 )

$342,000 (15 )

$265,250 (26 )

$260,500 (12 )

54.3%

Fairfield

$474,550

$473,600

1.1%

$429,150

10.4%

$342,550

38.3%

$340,600

39.0%

23.0 % (2015 )

$435,500 (18 )

$413,550 (20 )

$362,000 (41 )

$276,000 (37 )

$313,000 (19 )

39.1%

Fairview Downs

$459,550

$456,450

0.5%

$410,850

11.1%

$329,700

38.4%

$317,300

43.9%

23.2 % (2015 )

$449,000 (9 )

$451,500 (16 )

$422,000 (19 )

$361,000 (15 )

$323,779 (10 )

38.7%

Fitzroy

$482,600

$482,850

3.1%

$433,800

11.3%

$340,500

41.8%

$313,500

54.0%

15.5 % (2015 )

$512,500 (6 )

$464,000 (9 )

$507,000 (11 )

$329,000 (3 )

$317,000 (5 )

61.7%

HAMILTON CITY Bader

Smart property decisions start here

15

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

30APR2017

31MAR2017

E-Valuer price change in 3 months to

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

median value at 31MAR2016

change in year to 31MAR2017

median value at 31MAR2015

change in 2 years to

31MAR2017

E-Valuer estimate of E-Valuer price Sales price in 3 months to median value at change since 28FEB2017 in relation to CV market peak market peak (CV date in brackets)

31MAR2017

(31OCT2007)

Median price in 3 months to 28FEB2017

Median price in 3 months to 31DEC2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2015

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2014

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(31OCT2007)

Median price change in 3 years to 31MAR2017

Flagstaff

$729,250

$726,550

0.0%

$656,600

10.7%

$540,050

34.5%

$490,700

48.1%

24.7 % (2015 )

$747,000 (43 )

$764,500 (52 )

$664,000 (77 )

$575,000 (80 )

$497,250 (60 )

Forest Lake

$475,000

$475,650

1.4%

$431,550

10.2%

$338,800

40.4%

$323,900

46.9%

13.3 % (2015 )

$484,000 (11 )

$485,500 (12 )

$449,000 (15 )

$340,500 (16 )

$344,000 (11 )

50.2% 40.7%

Frankton

$403,450

$402,950

1.3%

$360,100

11.9%

$288,100

39.9%

$295,800

36.2%

27.9 % (2015 )

$361,750 (30 )

$374,100 (35 )

$315,000 (63 )

$252,500 (47 )

$266,000 (27 )

36.0%

Glenview

$491,650

$489,850

2.8%

$436,050

12.3%

$353,000

38.8%

$333,500

46.9%

21.1 % (2015 )

$489,000 (17 )

$482,000 (31 )

$433,000 (35 )

$338,000 (38 )

$329,500 (31 )

48.4%

Hamilton East

$481,100

$477,650

1.3%

$431,350

10.7%

$339,450

40.7%

$331,300

44.2%

19.6 % (2015 )

$426,500 (40 )

$477,000 (57 )

$407,600 (88 )

$334,500 (84 )

$331,000 (68 )

28.9%

Hillcrest

$525,300

$526,650

0.9%

$474,350

11.0%

$379,500

38.8%

$365,400

44.1%

19.0 % (2015 )

$460,550 (24 )

$534,000 (21 )

$475,250 (44 )

$344,000 (47 )

$365,000 (21 )

26.2%

Huntington

$742,200

$738,100

-0.5%

$668,450

10.4%

$556,700

32.6%

$532,000

38.7%

21.1 % (2015 )

$697,000 (37 )

$719,000 (41 )

$672,000 (59 )

$534,000 (51 )

$504,000 (43 )

38.3%

Maeroa

$464,450

$465,450

1.8%

$417,650

11.4%

$319,950

45.5%

$317,000

46.8%

26.2 % (2015 )

$445,850 (10 )

$456,500 (18 )

$411,500 (18 )

$288,750 (18 )

$314,000 (9 )

42.0%

Melville

$424,450

$427,500

3.1%

$374,450

14.2%

$294,500

45.2%

$292,900

46.0%

31.5 % (2015 )

$456,000 (15 )

$395,000 (17 )

$345,500 (46 )

$300,000 (39 )

$262,000 (20 )

74.0%

Nawton

$417,500

$421,250

1.6%

$376,850

11.8%

$296,400

42.1%

$298,100

41.3%

26.6 % (2015 )

$374,000 (29 )

$393,500 (46 )

$350,000 (85 )

$263,000 (67 )

$280,000 (47 )

33.6%

Pukete

$562,150

$559,400

0.0%

$503,550

11.1%

$402,300

39.1%

$369,800

51.3%

23.7 % (2015 )

$559,490 (12 )

$520,000 (25 )

$489,500 (26 )

$360,000 (30 )

$350,000 (23 )

59.9%

Queenwood

$648,750

$642,600

-0.9%

$585,650

9.7%

$469,700

36.8%

$450,800

42.5%

28.8 % (2015 )

$648,000 (9 )

$730,000 (9 )

$544,000 (7 )

$490,000 (8 )

$429,500 (8 )

50.9%

Rototuna

$706,500

$706,350

0.8%

$636,250

11.0%

$514,050

37.4%

$482,800

46.3%

21.9 % (2015 )

$699,500 (10 )

$737,000 (15 )

$656,000 (17 )

$507,000 (22 )

$499,000 (21 )

40.2%

Rototuna North

$703,650

$702,200

0.6%

$637,900

10.1%

$507,300

38.4%

$465,300

50.9%

20.8 % (2015 )

$714,500 (9 )

$684,000 (18 )

$662,000 (22 )

$507,500 (28 )

$504,000 (28 )

41.8%

Saint Andrews

$555,600

$554,800

2.1%

$500,100

10.9%

$401,850

38.1%

$371,600

49.3%

20.2 % (2015 )

$513,000 (20 )

$521,000 (28 )

$470,000 (35 )

$360,000 (36 )

$343,500 (32 )

49.3%

Silverdale

$478,900

$474,650

0.0%

$431,700

9.9%

$342,050

38.8%

$328,200

44.6%

17.4 % (2015 )

$467,000 (3 )

$545,900 (8 )

$387,500 (13 )

$339,500 (10 )

$299,500 (6 )

55.9%

WAIKATO/WAIPA/OTOROHANGA/SOUTH WAIKATO Cambridge $624,300 $619,050 Huntly $312,000 $313,200

2.8%

$525,050

17.9% 21.1%

60.9%

$403,800 $212,500

53.3%

$258,700

$453,900 $194,650

36.4%

1.5%

47.4%

5.8 % (2016 ) 76.4 % (2014 )

$623,250 (60 ) $246,000 (27 )

$583,000 (65 ) $275,500 (42 )

$539,000 (81 ) $284,000 (55 )

$430,000 (59 ) $182,000 (91 )

$418,000 (70 ) $224,000 (22 )

49.1% 9.8%

Kihikihi

$339,250

$330,050

-1.3%

$295,950

11.5%

$247,400

33.4%

$250,700

31.7%

-1.5 % (2016 )

$262,000 (10 )

$349,500 (14 )

$295,500 (16 )

$190,000 (6 )

$321,500 (6 )

-18.5%

Leamington

$542,150

$537,200

2.8%

$457,750

17.4%

$395,250

35.9%

$356,100

50.9%

7.0 % (2016 )

$459,000 (43 )

$503,000 (49 )

$454,000 (83 )

$379,000 (76 )

$360,500 (60 )

27.3%

Ngaruawahia

$353,700

$353,400

3.4%

$302,200

16.9%

$233,850

51.1%

$253,100

39.6%

65.5 % (2014 )

$350,000 (20 )

$342,000 (26 )

$286,000 (37 )

$244,000 (46 )

$252,500 (16 )

38.6%

Putaruru

$238,650

$237,400

5.3%

$183,100

29.7%

$165,950

43.1%

$193,600

22.6%

50.4 % (2015 )

$240,000 (25 )

$228,500 (30 )

$159,000 (39 )

$149,000 (15 )

$135,500 (10 )

77.1%

Raglan

$596,450

$613,300

1.5%

$501,000

22.4%

$432,150

41.9%

$454,000

35.1%

57.1 % (2014 )

$480,000 (20 )

$488,501 (35 )

$426,750 (34 )

$360,000 (55 )

$417,000 (18 )

15.1%

Te Awamutu

$419,750

$417,100

3.1%

$356,750

16.9%

$305,700

36.4%

$310,300

34.4%

8.3 % (2016 )

$390,500 (56 )

$388,000 (66 )

$358,360 (98 )

$292,000 (88 )

$279,000 (53 )

40.0%

Tokoroa

$166,250

$164,850

6.9%

$129,550

27.2%

$112,600

46.4%

$142,000

16.1%

46.5 % (2015 )

$142,000 (67 )

$148,500 (66 )

$122,000 (109 )

$90,000 (66 )

$81,250 (30 )

74.8%

Tuakau

$540,250

$539,000

0.1%

$467,000

15.4%

$391,000

37.9%

$321,800

67.5%

58.3 % (2014 )

$512,000 (31 )

$557,000 (31 )

$440,000 (48 )

$391,700 (40 )

$356,750 (28 )

43.5%

WAITOMO/TAUPO/RUAPEHU $517,100 Hilltop Kinloch $656,000

$515,900 $649,100

3.8%

$416,800 $541,250

23.8% 19.9%

$369,250

39.7%

$381,000 (26 )

31.6%

27.7%

11.5 % (2016 ) 15.3 % (2016 )

$422,000 (19 )

$493,150

$437,300 $508,400

18.0%

6.3%

$574,000 (11 )

$524,000 (7 )

$377,000 (27 ) $450,000 (25 )

$328,000 (21 ) $453,000 (14 )

$356,000 (13 ) $458,000 (8 )

25.3% 36.9%

18.5%

Kuratau

$416,400

$414,300

2.1%

$404,800

2.3%

$381,150

8.7%

$458,300

-9.6%

14.0 % (2016 )

$354,000 (3 )

$339,500 (6 )

$340,000 (14 )

$347,000 (9 )

$258,500 (8 )

Nukuhau

$476,600

$472,700

5.9%

$398,800

18.5%

$360,350

31.2%

$383,200

23.4%

13.9 % (2016 )

$490,500 (24 )

$400,000 (31 )

$349,000 (45 )

$343,500 (38 )

$332,000 (26 )

47.7%

Ohakune

$232,850

$230,450

2.3%

$206,350

11.7%

$208,000

10.8%

$246,900

-6.7%

10.2 % (2014 )

$252,500 (18 )

$276,000 (22 )

$182,000 (13 )

$225,000 (10 )

$195,000 (6 )

29.5%

Omori

$379,200

$377,950

1.7%

$369,150

2.4%

$350,450

7.8%

$429,000

-11.9%

1.7 % (2016 )

$283,500 (8 )

$278,000 (9 )

$330,000 (6 )

$282,500 (5 )

$280,500 (2 )

1.1%

Richmond Heights

$411,400

$415,000

3.0%

$348,850

19.0%

$304,600

36.2%

$331,300

25.3%

11.1 % (2016 )

$389,250 (14 )

$443,500 (16 )

$344,000 (28 )

$327,000 (17 )

$314,000 (7 )

24.0%

Tauhara

$287,950

$286,900

4.7%

$230,750

24.3%

$199,400

43.9%

$243,900

17.6%

5.4 % (2016 )

$283,000 (7 )

$259,500 (12 )

$227,500 (18 )

$190,250 (6 )

$199,000 (3 )

42.2%

Taumarunui

$126,200

$125,350

4.3%

$100,500

24.7%

$96,600

29.8%

$131,900

-5.0%

27.6 % (2014 )

$146,000 (21 )

$118,500 (30 )

$99,500 (28 )

$51,000 (24 )

$47,000 (11 )

210.6%

Taupo

$398,000

$397,650

3.6%

$328,100

21.2%

$287,800

38.2%

$339,200

17.2%

7.7 % (2016 )

$338,500 (50 )

$358,750 (60 )

$293,500 (76 )

$267,000 (41 )

$284,000 (35 )

19.2%

Te Kuiti

$171,900

$171,900

5.3%

$144,650

18.8%

N/A

N/A

$176,800

-2.8%

24.9 % (2015 )

$151,000 (32 )

$151,000 (27 )

$133,500 (28 )

$167,500 (14 )

$169,207 (14 )

-10.8%

Turangi

$195,000

$194,100

3.1%

$175,550

10.6%

$163,500

18.7%

$230,500

-15.8%

6.5 % (2016 )

$140,500 (28 )

$178,000 (28 )

$138,000 (30 )

$128,000 (19 )

$176,000 (10 )

-20.2%

Waipahihi

$596,550

$594,000

2.6%

$516,050

15.1%

$466,500

27.3%

$546,000

8.8%

7.3 % (2016 )

$527,000 (11 )

$519,250 (14 )

$458,000 (19 )

$415,500 (12 )

$390,000 (12 )

35.1%

$517,500 $790,000

$511,450

$350,600 $558,800

$328,000 (55 )

$668,500 (22 )

$496,500 (22 )

$320,000 (44 ) $520,000 (27 )

58.4%

$738,000 (7 )

$502,000 (30 ) $698,000 (19 )

$405,000 (53 )

39.8%

6.0 % (2016 ) 0.9 % (2016 )

$507,000 (19 )

$556,950

46.0% 40.3%

45.9%

$638,200

18.2% 22.4%

$350,200

$781,250

3.0% -0.1%

$432,800

Omokoroa Pukehina

$650,750

$648,250

4.3%

$497,050

30.4%

$410,000

58.1%

$544,200

19.1%

4.3 % (2016 )

$472,000 (16 )

$540,000 (17 )

$493,000 (16 )

$573,500 (10 )

$553,000 (9 )

-14.6%

Te Puke

$456,300

$447,900

4.2%

$365,350

22.6%

$286,850

56.1%

$316,400

41.6%

10.0 % (2016 )

$463,000 (37 )

$390,500 (48 )

$338,500 (76 )

$314,000 (57 )

$289,000 (31 )

60.2%

Waihi Beach

$731,700

$724,200

2.9%

$615,800

17.6%

$553,300

30.9%

$617,500

17.3%

4.2 % (2016 )

$802,000 (14 )

$604,000 (23 )

$591,000 (45 )

$494,000 (17 )

$498,000 (19 )

61.0%

$539,500 $740,250

$535,200

44.6% 39.4%

54.5% 48.5%

41.6 % (2015 ) 32.3 % (2015 )

$491,500 (17 ) $737,000 (31 )

$474,500 (20 ) $767,500 (39 )

$410,000 (45 ) $643,000 (67 )

$335,000 (23 ) $571,500 (56 )

62.2%

$532,200

$346,300 $499,600

$303,000 (18 )

$644,900

17.5% 15.0%

$370,250

$741,700

1.9% 1.9%

$455,550

Bethlehem

$565,000 (50 )

30.4%

Brookfield

$545,450

$543,250

2.0%

$471,150

15.3%

$365,600

48.6%

$347,300

56.4%

42.2 % (2015 )

$532,500 (20 )

$532,000 (17 )

$435,000 (35 )

$363,000 (45 )

$343,250 (19 )

55.1%

Gate Pa

$441,250

$442,100

1.7%

$387,050

14.2%

$292,050

51.4%

$288,600

53.2%

40.8 % (2015 )

$425,000 (23 )

$441,000 (29 )

$388,750 (54 )

$287,000 (46 )

$267,000 (25 )

59.2%

Greerton

$488,000

$485,400

-1.7%

$432,550

12.2%

$323,800

49.9%

$326,300

48.8%

34.0 % (2015 )

$464,000 (29 )

$490,000 (24 )

$405,000 (24 )

$300,000 (37 )

$321,500 (10 )

44.3%

Hairini

$514,850

$505,900

0.7%

$439,850

15.0%

$342,550

47.7%

$344,600

46.8%

38.8 % (2015 )

$421,000 (19 )

$468,500 (24 )

$428,000 (18 )

$304,250 (16 )

$359,500 (25 )

17.1%

Judea

$504,300

$500,900

2.2%

$432,750

15.7%

$338,900

47.8%

$324,700

54.3%

35.0 % (2015 )

$471,750 (16 )

$539,250 (16 )

$376,500 (31 )

$338,500 (23 )

$326,000 (17 )

44.7%

Matua

$793,250

$795,850

3.5%

$688,450

15.6%

$556,100

43.1%

$547,800

45.3%

42.6 % (2015 )

$648,000 (20 )

$619,000 (33 )

$699,000 (33 )

$471,000 (41 )

$454,500 (30 )

42.6%

Maungatapu

$613,100

$608,900

0.6%

$527,850

15.4%

$434,400

40.2%

$441,600

37.9%

38.4 % (2015 )

$602,000 (9 )

$629,000 (12 )

$538,000 (30 )

$325,000 (23 )

$373,000 (9 )

61.4%

Mount Maunganui

$800,400

$804,700

1.4%

$696,700

15.5%

$569,650

41.3%

$551,500

45.9%

30.5 % (2015 )

$602,000 (111 )

$597,500 (152 )

$593,000 (162 )

$449,000 (157 )

$423,000 (168 )

42.3%

Ohauiti

$672,400

$670,750

-0.6%

$581,150

15.4%

$473,250

41.7%

$462,100

45.2%

34.9 % (2015 )

$599,000 (16 )

$640,500 (20 )

$613,000 (26 )

$482,000 (32 )

$475,250 (20 )

26.0%

Otumoetai

$691,250

$689,800

-0.2%

$600,850

14.8%

$500,800

37.7%

$487,900

41.4%

35.1 % (2015 )

$604,500 (40 )

$645,500 (54 )

$564,500 (64 )

$427,500 (52 )

$345,075 (40 )

75.2%

Papamoa Beach

$686,000

$687,450

2.2%

$604,800

13.7%

$479,600

43.3%

$464,200

48.1%

35.1 % (2015 )

$640,000 (153 )

$647,000 (174 )

$584,000 (232 )

$442,000 (205 )

$434,500 (165 )

47.3%

Parkvale

$426,200

$425,400

1.2%

$378,350

12.4%

$278,150

52.9%

$278,600

52.7%

43.6 % (2015 )

$390,000 (9 )

$404,000 (10 )

$333,000 (21 )

$262,000 (17 )

$243,000 (8 )

60.5%

Pyes Pa

$681,850

$683,300

0.6%

$601,350

13.6%

$490,700

39.3%

$475,200

43.8%

38.1 % (2015 )

$679,000 (45 )

$684,000 (55 )

$609,000 (77 )

$465,500 (66 )

$457,000 (51 )

48.6%

Tauranga South

$597,950

$595,600

2.4%

$510,250

16.7%

$427,150

39.4%

$420,300

41.7%

34.3 % (2015 )

$491,000 (31 )

$557,750 (36 )

$476,500 (53 )

$368,500 (46 )

$339,575 (34 )

44.6%

Welcome Bay

$578,300

$570,150

-0.2%

$490,400

16.3%

$381,900

49.3%

$379,800

50.1%

36.3 % (2015 )

$530,000 (41 )

$549,000 (68 )

$483,250 (116 )

$357,000 (72 )

$341,000 (55 )

55.4%

ROTORUA Fairy Springs Fordlands

$303,450

$298,450

4.4%

$237,300

25.8%

$193,300

54.4%

$228,400

30.7%

46.6 % (2014 )

$261,000 (7 )

$260,000 (7 )

$227,500 (8 )

$181,000 (3 )

$147,500 (6 )

76.9%

$170,550

$164,150

2.1%

$127,400

28.8%

N/A

N/A

$124,400

32.0%

54.0 % (2014 )

$180,000 (8 )

$184,750 (4 )

$125,000 (15 )

$103,000 (4 )

$93,000 (3 )

93.5%

Glenholme

$407,650

$405,000

0.8%

$334,450

21.1%

$287,550

40.8%

$325,100

24.6%

40.2 % (2014 )

$441,000 (17 )

$371,000 (25 )

$333,500 (22 )

$349,000 (11 )

$264,500 (11 )

66.7%

Hillcrest

$340,200

$340,800

3.2%

$282,050

20.8%

$238,450

42.9%

$263,900

29.1%

34.8 % (2014 )

$266,000 (3 )

$261,500 (8 )

$278,500 (15 )

$228,500 (6 )

$282,000 (7 )

-5.7%

Kawaha Point

$458,150

$456,850

5.8%

$380,700

20.0%

$337,250

35.5%

$387,100

18.0%

35.4 % (2014 )

$314,000 (5 )

$432,000 (11 )

$308,000 (19 )

$373,000 (6 )

$360,250 (10 )

-12.8%

Koutu

$257,150

$254,050

4.1%

$201,950

25.8%

$163,750

55.1%

$203,000

25.1%

59.7 % (2014 )

$143,000 (5 )

$180,500 (14 )

$186,500 (10 )

$120,000 (3 )

$117,250 (4 )

22.0%

Lynmore

$556,300

$554,300

2.8%

$456,850

21.3%

$401,950

37.9%

$404,400

37.1%

46.5 % (2014 )

$530,000 (9 )

$565,000 (11 )

$414,000 (20 )

$377,000 (15 )

$427,000 (15 )

24.1%

Mangakakahi

$282,450

$279,700

2.3%

$223,100

25.4%

$184,650

51.5%

$212,300

31.7%

51.6 % (2014 )

$302,750 (12 )

$286,000 (19 )

$231,000 (21 )

$178,000 (4 )

$132,750 (6 )

128.1%

Ngongotaha

$370,100

$367,800

0.7%

$297,250

23.7%

$254,200

44.7%

$283,400

29.8%

31.5 % (2014 )

$297,000 (11 )

$322,500 (22 )

$250,000 (35 )

$219,500 (15 )

$303,888 (23 )

-2.3%

Owhata

$363,800

$365,350

3.7%

$288,750

26.5%

$255,650

42.9%

$273,900

33.4%

44.8 % (2014 )

$291,000 (19 )

$317,500 (22 )

$300,000 (48 )

$220,000 (13 )

$229,500 (30 )

26.8%

Pukehangi

$356,400

$353,500

1.5%

$288,450

22.6%

$250,300

41.2%

$267,800

32.0%

51.9 % (2014 )

$326,000 (24 )

$286,000 (27 )

$236,000 (30 )

$236,000 (15 )

$188,500 (23 )

72.9%

Springfield

$482,950

$484,750

4.2%

$393,000

23.3%

$346,700

39.8%

$370,000

31.0%

45.4 % (2014 )

$445,750 (15 )

$467,000 (19 )

$374,000 (25 )

$360,500 (10 )

$378,000 (16 )

17.9%

Utuhina

$330,650

$331,200

2.3%

$266,800

24.1%

$226,200

46.4%

$250,700

32.1%

44.8 % (2014 )

$328,750 (10 )

$306,100 (13 )

$256,300 (15 )

$195,500 (3 )

$223,500 (6 )

47.1%

WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY Katikati

TAURANGA Bellevue

Smart property decisions start here

41.9%

16

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

30APR2017

31MAR2017

E-Valuer price change in 3 months to

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

median value at 31MAR2016

change in year to 31MAR2017

median value at 31MAR2015

change in 2 years to

31MAR2017

31MAR2017

(31OCT2007)

(31OCT2007)

Median price in 3 months to 28FEB2017

Median price in 3 months to 31DEC2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2015

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2014

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

Median price change in 3 years to 31MAR2017

$249,150

2.7%

$201,100

23.9%

$166,150

50.0%

$204,900

21.6%

50.4 % (2014 )

$262,000 (19 )

$239,000 (28 )

$197,000 (23 )

$137,000 (3 )

$126,500 (6 )

107.1%

WHAKATANE/KAWERAU/OPOTIKI Kawerau $181,300

$179,250

6.8%

$164,350 (50 )

N/A

11.0%

$182,500 (16 )

$172,500 (16 )

$129,250 (56 ) $209,000 (23 )

$92,000 (19 ) $184,000 (15 )

$124,250 (10 )

25.1%

85.4 % (2015 ) 16.0 % (2016 )

$154,000 (39 )

6.3%

$148,500 $195,300

20.7%

$216,700

$99,700 N/A

79.8%

$220,750

$125,100 $173,200

43.3%

Opotiki

$101,000 (11 )

23.9% 80.7%

Whakatane

$379,250

$377,550

5.3%

$324,650

16.3%

$290,800

29.8%

$317,700

18.8%

14.6 % (2016 )

$360,000 (75 )

$355,000 (83 )

$300,000 (123 )

$294,000 (73 )

$277,000 (43 )

30.0%

5.2% 5.3%

$265,800

20.3% 16.2%

$237,950

24.6% 12.3%

9.1 % (2016 ) 28.0 % (2014 )

$277,000 (27 ) $461,000 (7 )

$297,000 (30 ) $466,000 (17 )

$255,000 (43 )

$248,000 (27 ) $264,000 (10 )

$224,000 (19 )

$469,400

34.4% 23.3%

$256,500

$498,150

23.7% 1.4%

Western Heights

$249,200

E-Valuer estimate of E-Valuer price Sales price in 3 months to median value at change since 28FEB2017 in relation to CV market peak market peak (CV date in brackets)

LOWER NORTH ISLAND GISBORNE/HAWKES BAY Akina Bluff Hill

$323,450 $591,000

$319,700 $579,000

Flaxmere

$207,200

$207,800

1.0%

$173,350

19.9%

$153,350

35.5%

$178,200

16.6%

12.6 % (2016 )

$197,000 (29 )

$199,500 (46 )

$172,575 (50 )

$151,000 (29 )

$167,500 (20 )

17.6%

Frimley

$453,850

$452,250

3.9%

$383,800

17.8%

$346,900

30.4%

$364,200

24.2%

26.1 % (2016 )

$411,000 (11 )

$360,000 (13 )

$434,000 (15 )

$360,500 (17 )

$344,000 (13 )

19.5%

Gisborne

$265,100

$273,250

0.3%

$227,200

20.3%

$220,250

24.1%

$271,200

0.8%

22.5 % (2014 )

$297,000 (8 )

$258,000 (9 )

$249,500 (16 )

$247,000 (9 )

$184,750 (11 )

60.8%

Greenmeadows

$479,200

$475,750

4.0%

$404,100

17.7%

$365,700

30.1%

$375,800

26.6%

30.0 % (2014 )

$454,000 (27 )

$451,000 (37 )

$332,000 (39 )

$346,750 (32 )

$350,000 (29 )

29.7%

Havelock North

$591,600

$582,800

3.6%

$493,950

18.0%

$458,400

27.1%

$465,200

25.3%

11.9 % (2016 )

$572,000 (70 )

$559,000 (88 )

$504,000 (122 )

$454,000 (78 )

$458,000 (82 )

24.9%

$515,700

$539,000 (25 )

$454,500 (18 )

Hospital Hill

$545,500

$538,650

3.7%

$470,050

14.6%

$439,850

22.5%

$471,700

14.2%

24.9 % (2014 )

$558,000 (12 )

$508,000 (12 )

$334,000 (23 )

$478,000 (17 )

$405,000 (16 )

37.8%

Inner Kaiti

$306,700

$300,400

3.2%

$263,200

14.1%

$254,050

18.2%

$321,400

-6.5%

23.5 % (2014 )

$364,000 (7 )

$265,000 (7 )

$242,000 (9 )

$288,500 (14 )

$206,000 (6 )

76.7%

Mahora

$373,550

$372,100

5.6%

$310,550

19.8%

$282,800

31.6%

$297,700

25.0%

8.3 % (2016 )

$322,000 (20 )

$324,000 (27 )

$275,000 (23 )

$259,000 (15 )

$274,500 (30 )

17.3%

Mangapapa

$252,450

$252,150

3.3%

$212,350

18.7%

$208,850

20.7%

$239,500

5.3%

20.0 % (2014 )

$245,000 (27 )

$248,000 (22 )

$209,500 (27 )

$213,000 (16 )

$208,000 (13 )

17.8%

Maraenui

$216,500

$217,200

6.0%

$168,750

28.7%

$147,900

46.9%

$194,700

11.6%

58.8 % (2014 )

$206,000 (14 )

$211,000 (19 )

$169,000 (14 )

$137,500 (4 )

$146,000 (7 )

41.1%

Marewa

$334,350

$329,500

7.3%

$272,000

21.1%

$245,950

34.0%

$270,400

21.9%

36.1 % (2014 )

$297,750 (22 )

$283,750 (26 )

$286,000 (35 )

$230,000 (23 )

$239,000 (15 )

24.6%

Mayfair

$324,500

$323,600

6.5%

$270,450

19.7%

$241,300

34.1%

$261,900

23.6%

11.8 % (2016 )

$335,500 (24 )

$280,500 (30 )

$271,000 (21 )

$230,000 (11 )

$240,000 (10 )

39.8%

Napier South

$380,450

$376,100

5.1%

$311,850

20.6%

$282,000

33.4%

$288,600

30.3%

42.0 % (2014 )

$357,750 (22 )

$363,500 (19 )

$293,000 (30 )

$297,500 (24 )

$277,000 (18 )

29.2%

Onekawa

$329,950

$326,800

1.7%

$278,750

17.2%

$247,250

32.2%

$264,400

23.6%

30.3 % (2014 )

$335,000 (28 )

$328,000 (30 )

$290,000 (41 )

$265,000 (33 )

$255,750 (14 )

31.0%

Parkvale

$348,600

$346,350

5.1%

$291,400

18.9%

$269,100

28.7%

$283,200

22.3%

8.1 % (2016 )

$288,500 (17 )

$304,000 (16 )

$279,500 (24 )

$271,000 (23 )

$259,750 (24 )

11.1%

Pirimai

$349,300

$348,700

2.2%

$291,150

19.8%

$263,800

32.2%

$272,300

28.1%

30.2 % (2014 )

$370,000 (13 )

$348,600 (16 )

$276,025 (22 )

$290,500 (16 )

$272,000 (13 )

36.0%

Raureka

$330,650

$326,100

5.3%

$269,700

20.9%

$240,900

35.4%

$270,500

20.6%

8.5 % (2016 )

$338,750 (18 )

$296,000 (25 )

$313,500 (28 )

$236,250 (16 )

$236,068 (12 )

43.5%

Riverdale

$327,850

$326,500

3.4%

$281,300

16.1%

$272,400

19.9%

$311,400

4.8%

24.8 % (2014 )

$364,000 (7 )

$311,500 (10 )

$297,500 (4 )

$214,000 (9 )

$255,500 (6 )

42.5%

Saint Leonards

$334,450

$332,850

7.1%

$278,100

19.7%

$251,550

32.3%

$270,200

23.2%

5.2 % (2016 )

$283,000 (17 )

$282,500 (19 )

$302,000 (26 )

$244,000 (14 )

$245,500 (8 )

15.3%

Tamatea

$359,150

$357,250

1.0%

$306,300

16.6%

$263,100

35.8%

$289,500

23.4%

31.0 % (2014 )

$355,500 (24 )

$371,000 (31 )

$305,750 (32 )

$259,250 (20 )

$269,000 (23 )

32.2%

Taradale

$469,900

$467,800

2.0%

$403,350

16.0%

$363,300

28.8%

$364,600

28.3%

33.6 % (2014 )

$416,250 (48 )

$440,000 (57 )

$376,000 (87 )

$354,750 (76 )

$362,000 (57 )

15.0%

Te Hapara

$243,200

$241,700

1.6%

$205,550

17.6%

$200,900

20.3%

$245,800

-1.7%

14.5 % (2014 )

$211,000 (39 )

$221,500 (26 )

$202,000 (37 )

$205,000 (21 )

$210,000 (28 )

0.5%

Waipukurau

$254,750

$251,950

5.4%

$218,250

15.4%

$200,300

25.8%

$228,200

10.4%

23.2 % (2015 )

$198,500 (32 )

$235,000 (43 )

$244,000 (27 )

$206,125 (28 )

$214,000 (23 )

-7.2%

Whataupoko

$376,300

$372,100

3.6%

$327,450

13.6%

$313,950

18.5%

$370,200

0.5%

14.8 % (2014 )

$356,000 (24 )

$356,000 (31 )

$338,000 (27 )

$281,000 (22 )

$308,000 (23 )

15.6%

$328,900 $168,750

$327,700 $168,300

4.5% 2.3%

$281,850

20.1%

14.6%

$173,500 (54 )

$264,000 (59 ) $138,000 (31 )

$249,000 (32 )

11.3 % (2014 )

$285,300 (36 ) $153,500 (40 )

$238,000 (44 )

12.3%

22.1% -0.9%

$329,000 (39 )

$149,800

$268,300 $169,800

24.7 % (2014 )

$153,700

16.3% 9.5%

$272,800

Dannevirke

$117,000 (29 )

$138,000 (19 )

11.2%

Featherston

$258,850

$255,800

4.3%

$204,450

25.1%

$191,550

33.5%

$224,400

14.0%

35.3 % (2014 )

$235,000 (21 )

$245,500 (26 )

$197,500 (16 )

$185,500 (13 )

$181,000 (18 )

29.8%

Greytown

$470,800

$465,150

4.6%

$417,250

11.5%

$394,650

17.9%

$379,500

22.6%

22.3 % (2014 )

$413,000 (23 )

$424,000 (31 )

$428,000 (30 )

$366,000 (24 )

$345,000 (19 )

19.7%

Lansdowne

$310,200

$305,700

5.0%

$261,600

16.9%

$255,650

19.6%

$273,000

12.0%

19.6 % (2014 )

$304,000 (28 )

$248,000 (29 )

$271,500 (50 )

$243,250 (22 )

$207,000 (20 )

46.9%

Martinborough

$429,400

$424,100

7.0%

$374,850

13.1%

$355,950

19.1%

$345,500

22.7%

28.6 % (2014 )

$382,000 (19 )

$426,500 (25 )

$339,500 (28 )

$280,000 (17 )

$294,000 (13 )

29.9%

Masterton

$278,450

$275,450

4.4%

$230,700

19.4%

$225,950

21.9%

$241,600

14.0%

23.2 % (2014 )

$274,000 (61 )

$261,750 (83 )

$259,000 (55 )

$196,500 (47 )

$209,275 (35 )

30.9%

TARARUA/WAIRARAPA Carterton

Pahiatua

$192,800

$191,800

5.0%

$171,650

11.7%

$161,800

18.5%

$164,200

16.8%

17.6 % (2014 )

$153,750 (28 )

$157,500 (26 )

$183,500 (14 )

$155,000 (16 )

$166,000 (13 )

-7.4%

Solway

$296,000

$292,150

3.9%

$249,000

17.3%

$243,000

20.2%

$248,000

17.8%

20.3 % (2014 )

$270,000 (34 )

$286,000 (31 )

$230,750 (26 )

$198,311 (18 )

$214,000 (20 )

26.2%

TARANAKI/WANGANUI Aramoho Bell Block

$183,250

$184,450 $428,050

8.6%

$146,600 $385,500

25.8%

11.0 % (2016 )

23.7%

3.5 % (2016 )

$176,500 (28 ) $424,000 (32 )

$150,000 (27 )

11.0%

$184,900 $346,000

-0.2%

0.5%

$156,250 $401,900

18.0%

$427,050

$147,750 (26 ) $416,000 (45 )

$154,000 (21 ) $356,000 (44 )

$147,500 (14 ) $326,000 (39 )

30.1% 7.2%

6.5%

$367,000 (31 )

19.7%

Castlecliff

$146,550

$147,000

8.0%

$118,850

23.7%

$112,850

30.3%

$152,800

-3.8%

10.0 % (2016 )

$111,500 (32 )

$112,000 (38 )

$131,000 (21 )

$95,500 (28 )

$104,000 (19 )

Frankleigh Park

$424,950

$424,350

0.5%

$394,650

7.5%

$371,050

14.4%

$351,200

20.8%

-1.2 % (2016 )

$363,000 (17 )

$400,500 (22 )

$408,500 (22 )

$319,000 (17 )

$339,000 (20 )

7.1%

Gonville

$168,250

$166,500

6.6%

$141,500

17.7%

$131,400

26.7%

$172,100

-3.3%

12.2 % (2016 )

$160,750 (32 )

$151,000 (51 )

$134,000 (32 )

$83,000 (27 )

$181,000 (25 )

-11.2%

Hawera

$244,200

$244,600

1.1%

$239,650

2.1%

$232,350

5.3%

$240,700

1.6%

4.3 % (2015 )

$222,500 (59 )

$235,000 (61 )

$206,500 (62 )

$219,000 (59 )

$235,000 (46 )

-5.3%

Highlands Park

$566,500

$563,950

2.4%

$528,150

6.8%

$496,250

13.6%

$477,200

18.2%

3.3 % (2016 )

$550,750 (16 )

$668,700 (7 )

$431,500 (8 )

$507,000 (15 )

$474,000 (17 )

16.2%

Inglewood

$337,300

$335,300

1.8%

$303,000

10.7%

$286,800

16.9%

$267,300

25.4%

4.9 % (2016 )

$315,000 (17 )

$290,000 (25 )

$272,000 (29 )

$267,000 (28 )

$276,500 (32 )

13.9%

Merrilands

$487,000

$485,800

1.8%

$453,900

7.0%

$417,850

16.3%

$394,800

23.0%

5.5 % (2016 )

$452,000 (21 )

$426,000 (24 )

$469,500 (30 )

$377,000 (23 )

$374,000 (27 )

20.9%

New Plymouth

$518,050

$516,600

1.9%

$469,900

9.9%

$434,250

19.0%

$414,200

24.7%

8.8 % (2016 )

$414,000 (25 )

$409,500 (22 )

$449,000 (19 )

$323,000 (35 )

$395,000 (17 )

4.8%

Saint Johns Hill

$332,750

$332,150

4.3%

$291,100

14.1%

$276,700

20.0%

$312,600

6.3%

6.7 % (2016 )

$337,500 (12 )

$369,000 (15 )

$286,500 (22 )

$299,000 (15 )

$281,500 (18 )

19.9%

Spotswood

$323,950

$321,750

1.3%

$297,950

8.0%

$277,550

15.9%

$252,900

27.2%

-0.2 % (2016 )

$289,000 (18 )

$344,000 (17 )

$276,500 (10 )

$298,500 (14 )

$267,550 (22 )

8.0%

Springvale

$271,150

$270,200

4.6%

$235,850

14.6%

$230,600

17.2%

$263,700

2.5%

9.0 % (2016 )

$266,250 (34 )

$235,000 (33 )

$234,000 (33 )

$222,500 (20 )

$224,000 (14 )

18.9%

Strandon

$574,550

$564,400

4.2%

$510,700

10.5%

$460,000

22.7%

$422,800

33.5%

13.8 % (2016 )

$431,750 (8 )

$512,000 (16 )

$433,000 (17 )

$355,500 (18 )

$342,000 (21 )

26.2%

Stratford

$245,050

$247,800

3.3%

$221,150

12.1%

$215,100

15.2%

$214,100

15.7%

15.2 % (2014 )

$225,000 (31 )

$225,000 (31 )

$238,500 (46 )

$205,000 (29 )

$185,000 (27 )

21.6%

Tawhero

$232,250

$229,750

4.8%

$204,500

12.3%

$198,200

15.9%

$223,300

2.9%

4.1 % (2016 )

$168,500 (18 )

$249,500 (20 )

$164,500 (20 )

$157,500 (10 )

$193,000 (10 )

-12.7%

Vogeltown

$371,900

$369,700

0.5%

$343,700

7.6%

$319,950

15.5%

$300,100

23.2%

0.9 % (2016 )

$352,500 (12 )

$365,000 (15 )

$346,000 (9 )

$317,000 (8 )

$321,500 (8 )

9.6%

Waitara

$270,850

$263,700

1.5%

$248,600

6.1%

$230,250

14.5%

$220,500

19.6%

4.8 % (2016 )

$230,000 (21 )

$249,000 (23 )

$239,500 (16 )

$261,000 (25 )

$228,000 (24 )

0.9%

Wanganui

$167,600

$165,850

4.0%

$147,800

12.2%

N/A

N/A

$179,800

-7.8%

13.1 % (2016 )

$161,000 (24 )

$156,000 (33 )

$161,000 (29 )

$111,000 (15 )

$120,000 (21 )

34.2%

Wanganui East

$186,850

$185,200

4.1%

$171,550

8.0%

$155,750

18.9%

$182,300

1.6%

4.3 % (2016 )

$154,000 (37 )

$160,750 (50 )

$164,000 (37 )

$187,000 (22 )

$174,000 (24 )

-11.5%

Westown

$385,300

$384,600

0.3%

$357,450

7.6%

$328,600

17.0%

$314,400

22.3%

0.9 % (2016 )

$377,000 (39 )

$372,000 (55 )

$335,000 (39 )

$330,000 (36 )

$314,500 (28 )

19.9%

Awapuni

$311,600 $336,700

$308,900 $332,450

2.6% 1.7%

$274,600 $289,600

12.5% 14.8%

$256,450 $275,100

20.5% 20.8%

$257,300 $282,200

20.1% 17.8%

21.0 % (2015 ) 17.8 % (2015 )

$295,000 (19 ) $321,500 (54 )

$277,000 (21 ) $316,000 (65 )

$269,000 (27 ) $274,000 (51 )

$240,000 (15 ) $240,000 (30 )

$223,000 (15 ) $246,000 (35 )

32.3% 30.7%

Feilding

$327,000

$324,900

4.0%

$285,350

13.9%

$265,200

22.5%

$275,100

18.1%

8.9 % (2016 )

$295,000 (114 )

$290,000 (112 )

$254,500 (110 )

$252,500 (88 )

$246,500 (82 )

19.7%

Fitzherbert

$534,950

$533,300

0.5%

$494,200

7.9%

$473,050

12.7%

$477,800

11.6%

13.7 % (2015 )

$537,000 (13 )

$533,500 (18 )

$462,000 (14 )

$477,000 (18 )

$442,000 (18 )

21.5% 13.0%

RANGITIKEI/MANAWATU Ashhurst

Highbury

$283,750

$281,700

2.7%

$246,700

14.2%

$233,300

20.7%

$242,600

16.1%

21.7 % (2015 )

$281,250 (22 )

$273,500 (36 )

$239,000 (35 )

$275,000 (29 )

$249,000 (24 )

Hokowhitu

$452,800

$451,000

2.0%

$413,950

9.0%

$391,200

15.3%

$398,100

13.3%

14.3 % (2015 )

$407,500 (48 )

$425,000 (69 )

$410,000 (71 )

$383,000 (67 )

$375,000 (51 )

8.7%

Kelvin Grove

$423,300

$421,500

1.2%

$367,800

14.6%

$347,700

21.2%

$336,500

25.3%

17.5 % (2015 )

$437,000 (46 )

$427,000 (49 )

$393,500 (46 )

$360,000 (50 )

$367,000 (41 )

19.1%

Marton

$182,750

$180,950

5.1%

$154,550

17.1%

$154,600

17.0%

$183,700

-1.5%

27.5 % (2014 )

$157,500 (24 )

$154,000 (31 )

$153,000 (34 )

$129,000 (26 )

$144,000 (27 )

9.4%

Milson

$337,900

$336,150

1.8%

$298,000

12.8%

$278,300

20.8%

$284,100

18.3%

17.4 % (2015 )

$330,000 (33 )

$307,000 (47 )

$275,000 (31 )

$261,500 (26 )

$245,000 (25 )

34.7%

Palmerston North

$344,450

$343,250

1.2%

$305,500

12.4%

$287,400

19.4%

$300,000

14.4%

15.5 % (2015 )

$346,000 (35 )

$338,500 (38 )

$306,000 (44 )

$275,000 (39 )

$283,000 (31 )

22.3%

Roslyn

$287,000

$284,450

1.7%

$249,750

13.9%

$234,000

21.6%

$241,200

17.9%

19.4 % (2015 )

$286,000 (23 )

$258,500 (32 )

$241,000 (48 )

$218,500 (30 )

$217,000 (16 )

31.8%

Smart property decisions start here

17

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

E-Valuer estimate of median value at

30APR2017

31MAR2017

E-Valuer price change in 3 months to

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

E-Valuer estimate of

E-Valuer price

median value at 31MAR2016

change in year to 31MAR2017

median value at 31MAR2015

change in 2 years to

31MAR2017

31MAR2017

E-Valuer estimate of E-Valuer price Sales price in 3 months to median value at change since 28FEB2017 in relation to CV market peak market peak (CV date in brackets) (31OCT2007)

(31OCT2007)

Median price in 3 months to 28FEB2017

Median price in 3 months to 31DEC2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2016

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2015

Median price in 3 months to 31MAR2014

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

(no. of sales in brackets)

Median price change in 3 years to 31MAR2017

Takaro

$294,500

$293,150

1.2%

$256,800

14.2%

$241,450

21.4%

$251,400

16.6%

18.6 % (2015 )

$300,000 (31 )

$309,500 (40 )

$243,500 (26 )

$225,500 (22 )

$236,000 (26 )

27.1%

Terrace End

$351,300

$349,000

1.6%

$309,600

12.7%

$290,850

20.0%

$298,200

17.0%

19.0 % (2015 )

$340,000 (21 )

$310,000 (33 )

$290,000 (35 )

$297,500 (28 )

$256,000 (29 )

32.8%

West End

$329,500

$327,400

2.4%

$289,300

13.2%

$270,800

20.9%

$282,900

15.7%

22.5 % (2015 )

$299,750 (22 )

$306,000 (33 )

$277,000 (33 )

$220,500 (28 )

$230,500 (26 )

30.0%

$191,600 $283,150

$190,700 $281,000

7.8%

$157,000

$146,100 $226,750

30.5% 23.9%

15.2 % (2016 )

$182,500 (26 ) $220,000 (29 )

$162,000 (27 )

$250,400

11.1% 12.2%

14.5 % (2016 )

$237,700

21.5% 18.2%

$171,700

7.1%

$211,000 (19 )

$165,000 (15 ) $209,000 (33 )

$125,500 (12 ) $222,000 (17 )

$153,000 (12 ) $174,000 (19 )

19.3% 26.4%

HOROWHENUA/KAPITI Foxton Foxton Beach Levin

$270,150

$266,950

5.6%

$222,850

19.8%

$200,300

33.3%

$237,100

12.6%

10.4 % (2016 )

$235,000 (127 )

$229,500 (144 )

$186,000 (173 )

$198,000 (131 )

$187,000 (112 )

25.7%

Otaki

$337,400

$340,000

6.1%

$267,550

27.1%

$250,150

35.9%

$262,000

29.8%

40.1 % (2014 )

$315,500 (26 )

$327,000 (32 )

$229,500 (45 )

$244,500 (36 )

$254,000 (38 )

24.2%

Otaki Beach

$340,250

$340,100

3.8%

$283,300

20.0%

$253,600

34.1%

$276,500

23.0%

31.5 % (2014 )

$324,000 (16 )

$301,500 (18 )

$260,000 (27 )

$223,000 (20 )

$234,750 (16 )

38.0%

Paraparaumu

$465,400

$464,400

3.8%

$384,950

20.6%

$358,500

29.5%

$355,900

30.5%

26.7 % (2014 )

$391,500 (42 )

$419,000 (69 )

$352,750 (84 )

$338,500 (64 )

$296,000 (51 )

32.3%

Paraparaumu Beach

$529,550

$526,400

2.4%

$444,500

18.4%

$414,650

27.0%

$409,400

28.6%

28.3 % (2014 )

$477,000 (39 )

$471,500 (52 )

$385,750 (76 )

$375,500 (70 )

$376,500 (67 )

26.7%

Raumati Beach

$536,800

$531,950

2.3%

$442,900

20.1%

$414,000

28.5%

$415,700

28.0%

29.5 % (2014 )

$468,000 (32 )

$491,750 (30 )

$390,000 (50 )

$400,000 (50 )

$378,500 (26 )

23.6%

Raumati South

$557,900

$545,800

2.7%

$451,300

20.9%

$424,950

28.4%

$414,900

31.5%

25.6 % (2014 )

$613,000 (21 )

$474,000 (23 )

$417,000 (19 )

$392,000 (18 )

$394,000 (21 )

55.6%

Waikanae

$518,050

$513,750

2.3%

$422,400

21.6%

$401,700

27.9%

$378,900

35.6%

28.8 % (2014 )

$532,750 (46 )

$519,000 (64 )

$414,000 (69 )

$376,500 (54 )

$381,500 (62 )

39.6%

Waikanae Beach

$582,150

$574,600

3.3%

$457,450

25.6%

$430,300

33.5%

$420,800

36.5%

40.2 % (2014 )

$517,000 (21 )

$521,000 (34 )

$412,500 (19 )

$432,000 (27 )

$386,000 (33 )

33.9%

$768,950

$667,900

15.1% 22.4%

$612,250

25.6% 34.1%

N/A

$592,000 (24 ) $294,000 (9 )

$559,000 (24 )

11.1 % (2016 )

$816,000 (9 ) $364,000 (9 )

$781,000 (13 )

$285,200

N/A 35.5%

12.8 % (2016 )

$288,200

$260,000 (11 )

$586,500 (16 ) $261,500 (4 )

39.2%

GREATER WELLINGTON PORIRUA Aotea

39.1%

$771,600 $388,450

$386,450

4.7% 9.0%

Cannons Creek

$278,600

$275,000

-0.6%

$246,450

11.6%

$210,150

30.9%

$222,800

23.4%

8.3 % (2016 )

$290,000 (12 )

$287,000 (15 )

$249,000 (13 )

$202,500 (9 )

$208,750 (12 )

38.9%

Papakowhai

$599,000

$589,350

4.8%

$503,700

17.0%

$461,550

27.7%

$463,400

27.2%

-1.0 % (2016 )

$437,000 (7 )

$470,500 (8 )

$508,000 (13 )

$465,000 (9 )

$439,000 (9 )

-0.5%

Paremata

$641,050

$635,800

3.1%

$551,200

15.3%

$515,950

23.2%

$512,500

24.1%

0.9 % (2016 )

$482,000 (9 )

$512,100 (15 )

$509,000 (13 )

$482,000 (9 )

$498,500 (15 )

-3.3%

Plimmerton

$681,950

$676,550

3.2%

$583,250

16.0%

$538,200

25.7%

$560,800

20.6%

2.2 % (2016 )

$545,223 (5 )

$684,389 (8 )

$555,250 (12 )

$657,000 (8 )

$497,000 (10 )

9.7%

Ranui

$334,450

$340,700

6.1%

$292,350

16.5%

$259,500

31.3%

$265,900

28.1%

7.2 % (2016 )

$354,500 (10 )

$277,000 (13 )

$303,000 (13 )

$264,000 (15 )

$299,500 (10 )

18.4%

Titahi Bay

$427,450

$426,900

5.4%

$358,350

19.1%

$319,000

33.8%

$335,900

27.1%

10.4 % (2016 )

$422,000 (31 )

$427,000 (41 )

$359,250 (54 )

$294,500 (28 )

$298,750 (24 )

41.3%

Whitby

$613,950

$612,450

2.3%

$522,750

17.2%

$480,850

27.4%

$491,900

24.5%

6.0 % (2016 )

$605,000 (41 )

$585,000 (63 )

$527,000 (71 )

$460,500 (68 )

$444,000 (51 )

36.3%

UPPER HUTT Birchville

$410,700

$338,250

$323,000

7.7 % (2016 )

$351,000 (12 ) $395,000 (11 )

$416,500 (13 ) $385,000 (14 )

$310,000 (20 ) $312,750 (14 )

$299,000 (14 )

$302,750

31.2% 26.0%

2.2 % (2016 )

$341,200

34.5% 34.5%

$311,700

5.6%

20.9% 19.3%

$304,000

$407,000

$408,800 $407,100

3.2%

Ebdentown

$196,500 (4 ) $328,500 (16 )

20.2%

Elderslea

$434,250

$434,550

2.3%

$361,600

20.2%

$336,850

29.0%

$358,100

21.3%

13.3 % (2016 )

$423,750 (16 )

$460,000 (15 )

$377,000 (15 )

$343,000 (15 )

$329,000 (9 )

28.8%

Pinehaven

$482,000

$482,550

5.1%

$409,350

17.9%

$370,750

30.2%

$372,700

29.5%

4.5 % (2016 )

$478,750 (11 )

$409,000 (13 )

$409,000 (17 )

$355,500 (8 )

$384,000 (13 )

24.7%

Silverstream

$533,500

$531,950

3.7%

$456,100

16.6%

$416,850

27.6%

$426,100

24.8%

8.0 % (2016 )

$483,000 (16 )

$504,000 (23 )

$479,500 (28 )

$472,000 (9 )

$402,000 (15 )

20.1%

Totara Park

$414,400

$407,800

5.5%

$341,550

19.4%

$309,900

31.6%

$319,600

27.6%

5.0 % (2016 )

$373,000 (11 )

$399,300 (18 )

$324,750 (16 )

$307,000 (11 )

$285,500 (18 )

30.6%

Ascot Park

$315,800

$365,000 (7 )

$361,750 (14 )

78.6%

Trentham

$414,350

$413,400

4.7%

$338,100

22.3%

$307,400

34.5%

$315,400

31.1%

11.1 % (2016 )

$412,000 (30 )

$415,500 (42 )

$335,750 (56 )

$332,000 (44 )

$311,000 (27 )

32.5%

Wallaceville

$390,750

$389,450

2.6%

$322,950

20.6%

$289,250

34.6%

$299,400

30.1%

7.6 % (2016 )

$359,000 (5 )

$359,000 (9 )

$349,000 (15 )

$307,000 (10 )

$178,000 (15 )

101.7%

Belmont

$490,350 $592,200

$485,650 $588,100

5.0% 3.9%

$397,000 $518,650

22.3% 13.4%

$355,250 $477,200

36.7% 23.2%

$366,200 $480,200

32.6% 22.5%

5.5 % (2016 ) 7.4 % (2016 )

$442,000 (17 ) $561,500 (12 )

$472,000 (22 ) $607,500 (18 )

$400,000 (18 ) $489,000 (17 )

$377,000 (19 ) $433,000 (22 )

$373,000 (16 ) $419,000 (15 )

18.5% 34.0%

Boulcott

$603,950

$600,150

3.1%

$515,250

16.5%

$471,400

27.3%

$468,100

28.2%

6.6 % (2016 )

$511,500 (14 )

$622,000 (13 )

$709,000 (15 )

$437,500 (16 )

$429,000 (15 )

19.2%

Eastbourne

$788,500

$782,550

3.9%

$706,050

10.8%

$672,300

16.4%

$695,300

12.5%

6.1 % (2016 )

$759,500 (14 )

$665,000 (19 )

$582,050 (16 )

$662,000 (13 )

$763,000 (7 )

-0.5%

Epuni

$541,000

$537,100

3.7%

$447,550

20.0%

$408,600

31.4%

$409,800

31.1%

9.5 % (2016 )

$577,000 (6 )

$447,000 (9 )

$424,000 (11 )

$422,000 (15 )

$397,500 (10 )

45.2%

HUTT Avalon

Kelson

$518,100

$510,850

3.5%

$422,200

21.0%

$381,400

33.9%

$372,200

37.3%

6.6 % (2016 )

$485,000 (15 )

$460,000 (18 )

$427,650 (18 )

$347,000 (11 )

$366,000 (12 )

32.5%

Maungaraki

$591,800

$586,450

4.7%

$460,500

27.4%

$418,000

40.3%

$410,100

43.0%

6.2 % (2016 )

$577,000 (13 )

$557,000 (19 )

$429,440 (22 )

$371,250 (28 )

$410,000 (27 )

40.7%

Naenae

$377,300

$372,100

9.2%

$290,500

28.1%

$257,650

44.4%

$283,300

31.3%

12.0 % (2016 )

$367,000 (26 )

$344,000 (35 )

$306,000 (34 )

$247,000 (34 )

$274,000 (27 )

33.9%

Normandale

$579,100

$572,500

3.8%

$464,150

23.3%

$426,900

34.1%

$408,400

40.2%

6.8 % (2016 )

$557,000 (5 )

$557,000 (8 )

$450,500 (14 )

$391,000 (11 )

$400,000 (7 )

39.3% 44.7%

Petone

$621,700

$612,100

0.3%

$500,200

22.4%

$442,800

38.2%

$432,400

41.6%

0.1 % (2016 )

$607,000 (32 )

$631,000 (36 )

$599,500 (30 )

$483,150 (40 )

$419,500 (30 )

Stokes Valley

$374,950

$371,600

4.7%

$316,100

17.6%

$288,350

28.9%

$305,300

21.7%

7.6 % (2016 )

$356,444 (47 )

$342,000 (60 )

$302,000 (63 )

$292,000 (40 )

$279,000 (40 )

27.8%

Taita

$361,750

$361,000

7.0%

$291,500

23.8%

$259,850

38.9%

$264,000

36.7%

9.1 % (2016 )

$354,000 (15 )

$338,944 (24 )

$319,000 (20 )

$326,750 (34 )

$274,000 (21 )

29.2%

Wainuiomata

$331,400

$327,850

8.1%

$257,150

27.5%

$235,850

39.0%

$255,400

28.4%

9.5 % (2016 )

$322,000 (70 )

$324,500 (76 )

$261,000 (86 )

$229,000 (78 )

$230,000 (68 )

40.0%

Waiwhetu

$502,700

$498,750

5.1%

$398,550

25.1%

$359,800

38.6%

$352,300

41.6%

9.1 % (2016 )

$489,500 (16 )

$513,000 (18 )

$437,000 (20 )

$362,000 (15 )

$390,250 (12 )

25.4%

Waterloo

$587,600

$581,200

3.5%

$475,400

22.3%

$432,050

34.5%

$434,900

33.6%

4.6 % (2016 )

$528,000 (13 )

$514,000 (21 )

$481,500 (26 )

$444,000 (27 )

$447,500 (22 )

18.0%

WELLINGTON Aro Valley Berhampore

$667,450

$662,600 $578,600

3.8%

$498,350

$404,700

25.8 % (2015 )

$643,500 (6 ) $611,325 (10 )

$631,000 (10 ) $539,300 (12 )

$500,500 (10 ) $566,500 (22 )

$504,000 (11 ) $455,000 (21 )

$470,500 (6 ) $491,000 (16 )

36.8%

$427,100

43.9% 43.0%

28.6 % (2015 )

14.9%

33.0% 35.5%

$460,500

5.6%

$563,000 $503,650

17.7%

$582,100

Brooklyn

$750,250

$747,800

2.6%

$660,150

13.3%

$567,550

31.8%

$538,400

38.9%

32.3 % (2015 )

$642,000 (14 )

$649,000 (19 )

$625,820 (31 )

$559,000 (35 )

$522,050 (24 )

23.0%

Churton Park

$709,800

$705,900

1.6%

$600,150

17.6%

$540,550

30.6%

$513,900

37.4%

34.7 % (2015 )

$647,000 (21 )

$652,000 (24 )

$618,500 (53 )

$581,000 (38 )

$595,000 (31 )

8.7%

Hataitai

$853,150

$847,400

2.6%

$737,600

14.9%

$656,300

29.1%

$597,500

41.8%

31.1 % (2015 )

$734,500 (16 )

$868,500 (14 )

$683,888 (29 )

$594,500 (22 )

$544,000 (30 )

35.0%

Island Bay

$800,150

$798,000

3.8%

$692,700

15.2%

$600,900

32.8%

$555,100

43.8%

29.2 % (2015 )

$767,500 (17 )

$693,000 (27 )

$633,500 (34 )

$533,757 (18 )

$552,000 (33 )

39.0%

Johnsonville

$572,650

$573,400

3.6%

$477,800

20.0%

$420,300

36.4%

$401,300

42.9%

31.4 % (2015 )

$619,000 (38 )

$547,250 (49 )

$535,500 (62 )

$424,600 (56 )

$415,000 (52 )

49.2%

Karori

$798,100

$795,100

4.3%

$687,800

15.6%

$590,000

34.8%

$552,200

44.0%

26.1 % (2015 )

$639,628 (50 )

$629,000 (60 )

$615,000 (87 )

$532,000 (77 )

$532,000 (83 )

20.2%

Kelburn

$1,120,400

$1,123,700

3.0%

$977,100

15.0%

$886,650

26.7%

$819,700

37.1%

28.3 % (2015 )

$899,000 (7 )

$808,999 (13 )

$821,000 (15 )

$955,000 (17 )

$805,000 (13 )

11.7%

Khandallah

$931,850

$926,350

3.3%

$794,350

16.6%

$718,200

29.0%

$674,200

37.4%

29.4 % (2015 )

$843,000 (37 )

$860,000 (39 )

$728,000 (59 )

$676,550 (42 )

$676,500 (39 )

24.6%

24.5%

Kilbirnie

$621,800

$621,050

1.6%

$543,900

14.2%

$471,550

31.7%

$435,900

42.5%

28.9 % (2015 )

$616,575 (9 )

$680,000 (17 )

$551,000 (7 )

$486,985 (15 )

$564,000 (9 )

9.3%

Lyall Bay

$666,400

$663,550

3.8%

$572,100

16.0%

$501,400

32.3%

$464,500

42.9%

33.5 % (2015 )

$650,000 (8 )

$642,000 (15 )

$621,000 (10 )

$585,000 (20 )

$497,500 (10 )

30.7%

Miramar

$725,100

$722,400

4.7%

$625,850

15.4%

$537,150

34.5%

$492,500

46.7%

31.7 % (2015 )

$699,000 (25 )

$656,000 (30 )

$620,000 (45 )

$538,250 (32 )

$525,000 (32 )

33.1%

Newlands

$544,600

$548,700

3.8%

$456,350

20.2%

$392,500

39.8%

$376,200

45.9%

40.5 % (2015 )

$513,500 (35 )

$536,750 (46 )

$466,500 (40 )

$403,000 (36 )

$388,000 (32 )

32.3%

Newtown

$678,850

$680,300

5.7%

$585,700

16.2%

$496,500

37.0%

$465,900

46.0%

29.4 % (2015 )

$647,000 (19 )

$654,500 (24 )

$558,000 (26 )

$519,500 (18 )

$469,000 (25 )

38.0%

Ngaio

$752,950

$745,100

4.1%

$641,050

16.2%

$571,700

30.3%

$528,000

41.1%

34.9 % (2015 )

$668,000 (21 )

$701,874 (28 )

$629,000 (24 )

$577,000 (44 )

$558,500 (26 )

19.6%

Northland

$793,300

$794,050

2.2%

$687,050

15.6%

$599,750

32.4%

$560,000

41.8%

28.6 % (2015 )

$587,750 (10 )

$673,000 (13 )

$630,000 (15 )

$542,000 (17 )

$534,000 (13 )

10.1%

Paparangi

$577,000

$585,600

5.4%

$488,900

19.8%

$417,000

40.4%

$396,500

47.7%

37.6 % (2015 )

$587,700 (5 )

$587,700 (9 )

$467,000 (17 )

$392,000 (13 )

$410,000 (14 )

43.3%

Seatoun

$1,272,350

$1,263,450

4.6%

$1,107,650

14.1%

$973,350

29.8%

$935,500

35.1%

25.5 % (2015 )

$1,705,000 (3 )

$940,282 (10 )

$795,001 (19 )

$996,000 (19 )

$830,000 (13 )

105.4%

Strathmore Park

$715,700

$704,450

5.1%

$619,200

13.8%

$522,950

34.7%

$485,700

45.0%

31.6 % (2015 )

$695,500 (6 )

$687,000 (9 )

$616,635 (12 )

$515,000 (11 )

$542,000 (7 )

28.3%

Tawa

$551,050

$545,200

2.8%

$471,250

15.7%

$411,300

32.6%

$397,800

37.1%

29.2 % (2015 )

$527,000 (38 )

$516,500 (58 )

$446,000 (73 )

$406,000 (67 )

$374,125 (46 )

40.9%

Te Aro

$499,750

$493,850

3.5%

$430,900

14.6%

$399,000

23.8%

$420,100

17.6%

28.1 % (2015 )

$434,000 (37 )

$431,500 (45 )

$297,150 (113 )

$328,000 (46 )

$344,000 (35 )

26.2%

Wadestown

$966,100

$963,850

2.5%

$855,500

12.7%

$736,000

31.0%

$714,500

34.9%

13.9 % (2015 )

$816,000 (8 )

$913,000 (19 )

$757,000 (23 )

$657,000 (13 )

$965,000 (13 )

-15.4%

Wellington Central

$387,400

$384,650

1.1%

$344,950

11.5%

$302,800

27.0%

$331,700

16.0%

23.6 % (2015 )

$358,500 (12 )

$275,000 (23 )

$275,500 (34 )

$238,500 (19 )

$240,000 (23 )

49.4%

Wilton

$657,800

$654,900

3.5%

$577,100

13.5%

$506,100

29.4%

$479,200

36.7%

36.4 % (2015 )

$541,500 (4 )

$553,500 (6 )

$616,000 (9 )

$538,500 (9 )

$470,500 (6 )

15.1%

Woodridge

$640,150

$632,750

6.1%

$542,400

16.7%

$494,350

28.0%

$470,600

34.5%

23.3 % (2015 )

$504,000 (3 )

$511,500 (8 )

$537,000 (7 )

$555,000 (9 )

$544,500 (8 )

-7.4%

Smart property decisions start here

18

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

SPOTLIGHT ON . . . COATESVILLE

Enjoy rural living at its best This highly sought-after rural area has top schools and large shopping centres just minutes away, writes Graham Hepburn

W

hile the squeeze is on in Auckland to intensify residential development, the residents of Coatesville can rest assured that their rural lifestyle is protected — at least for the time being. Under the new Unitary Plan, Coatesville has been designated as Countryside Living, which effectively means an area of low-density housing with restrictions on farming activities that might cause friction with neighbours. Coatesville is a small, affluent rural community approximately 30km north-west of Auckland where most section sizes are larger than 1ha. The size of the sites gives residents peace and privacy, and also means they have room to build mansions with pools and tennis courts, or have equestrian facilities. As Jason Smale, of Premium Real Estate, says: “The Countryside Living zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan only permits land of scale resulting in privacy and seclusion accompanied with the ability to build to scale and in many cases the home of your dreams. “All of this is coupled with the proximity to Albany, being less than seven minutes’ drive, including Westfield Mall and Albany Mega Centre, North Harbour Sports Stadium, and only 25 minutes to Auckland CBD. “The main aspect of Coatesville that make it desirable is the countryside lifestyle offering that’s second-to-none, including the excellent retention of the natural amenity of the area with extensive bush walks and parks. “All of these fantastic aspects have made Coatesville the highest-priced suburb in Auckland and certainly one of the most desirable to live. “With the Auckland Unitary Plan allowing for greater

Built for the Bradley family, this Coatesville property was once the most expensive in New Zealand.

intensification of development of its inner suburbs, we have seen Coatesville lift in value with people looking to move to greener pastures.” Sheryl Campbell, of Bayleys, says Coatesville is a prestigious and highly sought-after lifestyle community close to excellent North Shore Schools, private schools and the Massey University campus. She says: “There is an eclectic and wide range of lifestyle properties from 1ha to 4ha-plus with original villas through to luxurious mansions. “Buyers are attracted to the area for the lifestyle it offers, the proximity to the best schooling and access to the CBD. Local and overseas expatriate Kiwis are drawn to the high standard and quality of homes available. “Coatesville offers a very special community with the

Photo / Supplied

local hall widely used for annual events ranging from charity and fundraising to dances. The local school runs an ag day each year, there is a garden club, Country Women’s Institute, pony club and a strong ratepayers group.” The so-called Chrisco mansion put Coatesville on the map, causing a stir because — at the time — it was the most expensive house in the country with an estimated price tag of $30 million. The home was owned by Richard and Ruth Bradley, the British founders of Christmas hamper company Chrisco, and has among its features a maze, swimming pool, water features and a tennis court. It gained even more notoriety when internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom leased the mansion from the Bradleys. He became embroiled in a copyright infringement case that culinated in a spectacular police raid on the mansion and Dotcom was arrested there. Like a lot of the lifestyle areas around Auckland, Coatesville was a farming area, and was originally called Fernielea. It was renamed Coatesville in 1926 after the Prime Minister of the time, J. Gordon Coates, honoured his election promise to have the area’s roads metalled (they are now sealed). The Coatesville Settlers Hall — used to this day for community events — was built in 1926. The Coatesville Market is held on the first Sunday of each month (apart from January) and has proved popular with locals and visitors, who also come to tour the various gardens around the area such as Mincher, which has been named a Garden of National Significance by the NZ Gardens Trust. Coatesville has a small village centre with a garage and shops, and the popular, child-friendly Fernielea Cafe.

Selling Coatesville JASON SMALE 021 778 776 JasonSmale@premium.co.nz

NICK TODD 021 292 9666 NickTodd@premium.co.nz PREMIUM REAL ESTATE LTD MREINZ LICENSED REAA 2008

PREMIUM.CO.NZ | FINE HOMES | 916 6000

19

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Recent sales: Coatesville Ailsa McArthur, of Bayleys, has had the following sales in Coatesville: a modern four-bedroom home on just over 2ha at 340 Ridge Rd that changed hands for $1.45 million; a four-bedroom home on about 1.5ha at 179 Glenmore Rd that went for $2.3 million; and a large and distinctive home on 1.2ha of land at 124 Mahoenui Valley Rd that sold for $3.02 million.

Property prices

Premium Real Estate sold a Ridge Rd home for $5.1 million. On almost 2ha of landscaped grounds, this 800sq m solid masonry home is less than five years old and features five bedrooms, six bathrooms, multiple indoor and outdoor living areas, home cinema, guest house with cabana, sauna/spa, and pool.

An entry-level property in this area would be a fourbedroom home on 1ha selling for between $1.5 million and $2 million. An average home would comprise five bedrooms on 1ha to 2ha and change hands for $2 million to $3.5 million. Luxury properties sell for anywhere between $3.5 and $10 million and have up to six bedrooms on sites as large as 4ha. A bare section of 1ha on Ridge Rd with a northeastern aspect and rolling contour was sold in March by Premium Real Estate for $1.585 million.

Rents Rentals are scarce in Coatesville. However, onebedroom homes can rent for between $300 and $400 a week, while two- and three-bedroom homes cost around $600 a week. Rural spreads rent for more than $1000 a week.

Schools

$3.02m: 124 Mahoenui Valley Rd.

Coatesville School, Albany Junior and Senior highs. Further away are Long Bay College, Rangitoto College, Westlake Boys and Westlake Girls’ high schools.

Best streets Mahoenui Valley, Glenmore Ridge and Sunnyside rds.

Local attractions

$2.3m: 179 Glenmore Rd.

Coatesville Market Held on the first Sunday of each month by the Settlers Hall (inside in bad weather), this market has food, arts and crafts stalls. Mincher A large rural garden, Mincher is laid out mostly in a formal fashion but also has bush walks and is home to a huge variety of birdlife. It has a Georgianstyled home, a kitchen garden, lawns, ponds, Victorian-inspired glasshouses and outbuildings.

$1.45m: 340 Ridge Rd.

Listing a Coatesville property? We’ll help you on your journey. Call Bayleys Albany 09 414 0950 today! Sheryl Campbell (Branch Manager) 0212 850 402 Find out what our Bayleys customers have to say about us. bayleys.co.nz. Then start your own story. Bayleys Real Estate Ltd, Albany, Licensed under the REAA 2008

20 June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT SPOTLIGHT ON . . . REMUERA

Empty nesters stay put Remuera continues to be a popular area for those wanting a good home in an established district, writes Graham Hepburn

R

emuera has long been top of the list for Auckland home-buyers wanting the best schooling for their children. But when those children finished school and left home, the next step usually involved selling the big family home and moving to another suburb to downsize. That trend has been reversed recently as more apartments are built in Remuera, enabling empty-nesters to stay in a suburb that has often been home to generations of family. As Rachel Dovey, of Bayleys, says: “Remuera is seeing an increase in high-end, quality apartment residences, such as the recently completed 464 Remuera Rd development, also St Marks Road, currently under construction, is being built to a high-end, quality specification.

“This development also has an in-house cafe, which will be open to residents and the local community.” For many years the bedrock for real estate values in this suburb has been that it is in-zone for schools such as Victoria Ave Primary, Remuera Intermediate, Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar, and a range of private schools. The status of these schools and the fact that Remuera is seen as a wealthy suburb has attracted the likes of business people and those in the medical and legal professions. But Remuera’s central nature has also been a major factor. As Barry Thom, of UP Real Estate, says: “It’s only a few minutes’ drive from all the places you need to go; the motorway access in one direction or the waterfront in the other — both are just minutes from the central northern slopes. “Similarly, Newmarket’s and Parnell’s shops and restaurants are moments away and, for many, the community-based Remuera village is within walking distance. “Add in parks including Bloodworth at the bottom of Shore Rd and its wonderful foreshore walkway and Rangitoto Park at Upland Rd — it’s the ideal playground.”

Remuera has a reputation for being a wealthy area served by top schools. The suburb features large family homes as well as new apartments. Photo / Herald Files

Steve Williams, of Bayleys, says: “Remuera offers an excellent cross-section of housing options from units and apartments through to large family homes.” Those include a vast array of architectural styles produced by noted architects such as Roy Binney, Horace Massey, the Group Architects, Vlad Cacala, Ron Sang, Simon Carnachan, Marshall Cook, Peter Sargisson, Simon Pirie, Jeff Fearon and Tim Hay. Thom says: “Streets like Arney Rd, Bassett Rd and Victoria Ave have long been synonymous with established gracious family homes. For many years sales in these streets have been market leaders. “In recent years, many of Remuera’s character homes have been refurbished and renovated to the highest standards. Similarly, the area has seen significant investment in new builds. In recent times, many of these have been for owners rather than developer-builders.” Williams says Remuera’s ‘northern slopes’ properties enjoy spectacular views of the harbour and Rangitoto Island. “Remuera offers an excellent variety of specialty shops, supermarket, cafes, bars and restaurants with convenient parking available in the heart of the village,” he says.

Our bespoke selling experience is crafted from a combination of your preferences and our expertise in order to achieve the selling price your home deserves. We call it... OUR REMUERA HOME UP REMUERA 2 Dilworth Ave, Remuera

UP MT EDEN 435 Mt Eden Rd, Mt Eden

UP HERNE BAY 162 Jervois Rd, Herne Bay

21

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Recent sales: Remuera Three of UP Real Estate’s recent sales are indicative of prices in this area. The company sold 104 Portland Rd, a fourbedroom, two-bathroom 1940s character bungalow on a flat 735sq m site for $2 million. A five-bedroom, two-bathroom northern slopes home on 612sq m at 34 Dell Ave changed hands for $2.75 million. A fourbedroom weatherboard home on 882sq m at 42 Ranui Rd sold for $2.5 million. Steve Williams and Caroline Yau of Bayleys sold 66 Spencer St for $1.4 million. The three-bedroom, two-bathroom duplex has a single carport and a 1⁄4 share of 1560sq m of land.

Property prices Gerard Charteris and Jayne Kiely, also of Bayleys, oversaw the sale of 64 Lucerne Rd, a character fourbedroom, four-bathroom home with four-car garaging on a 1527sq m site for $7.2 million. Bayleys’ Paul Sissons sold 2/164 Remuera Rd, a 119sq m, two-bedroom Remuera garden apartment with north-facing harbour views for $1.43 million. His colleague David Rainbow marketed 16 Combes Rd, which sold at auction for $3.635 million. A fivebedroom renovated bungalow, it sits on 878sq m. Gary and Vicki Wallace of Bayleys sold a contemporary-style, solid masonry home of 369sq m with pool at 93 Lucerne Rd for $3.55 million.

An entry-level property of two to three bedrooms on a section no bigger than 400sq m would typically sell for $1.25 million to $1.8 million. An average three-bedroom or four-bedroom home on a 500sq m to 750sq m site sells for $2 million to $4 million. Substantial homes on large sites start at $5 million and can go for $10 million-plus. According to Bayleys’ statistics, Remuera had 25 per cent of the 100 most expensive residential properties sold in the Auckland region last year. It had the highest proportion of $1 million-plus sales across the year and also saw the region’s highest value sale at $18 million. In the final quarter of last year, Remuera’s median sale price rose to $1.865 million.

Rents Single room units generally rent for $300 to $400 a week, with two- and three-bedroom homes in the $600 to $800 range. Homes with four or more bedrooms start at about $1000 a week but are typically around the $1400 mark.

Schools $3.635m: 16 Combes Rd.

St Michael’s School, Victoria Ave, Remuera and Meadowbank Primaries, Remuera Intermediate, Auckland Grammar, Epsom Girls’ Grammar and Selwyn College. Kings School, Dilworth, St Kentigern boys’ and girls’ schools, and Baradene College.

Best streets Arney Rd, Arney Cres, Victoria Ave, Tirohonga Ave, Burwood Cres, Seaview Rd, Eastbourne Rd, top end Bassett Rd, Westbury Cres, Westbourne Rd.

$2.5m: 42 Ranui Rd.

Local attractions Remuera village While this part of town doesn’t have the buzz of Ponsonby or Herne Bay, it is slowly getting with the programme as more specialty shops, cafes, bars and restaurants open up. The Remuera Library is well used by locals and you can pick up a brochure here for the Remuera Heritage Walk.

$7.2m: 64 Lucerne Rd.

$3.55m: 93 Lucerne Rd.

Orakei Basin Some Remuera homes overlook or front the Orakei Basin, which is a tranquil spot in the heart of the city. A walkway around it has boardwalks and bridges, providing a connection to Meadowbank that pedestrians and cyclists can use. For dog owners, there is an off-leash area in the reserve between the carpark and the Auckland Water Ski Club, which is also based here.

We could tell you how good we are or you could listen to our customers. Customers mean everything to us. So if you’re listing your property, start your Bayleys Story by getting in touch. Rachel Dovey 50 Remuera Road, Newmarket DDI 09 520 8888 • M 027 268 5550 www.bayleys.co.nz

Start your Bayleys story today. BAYLEYS REAL ESTATE LTD. LICENSED UNDER THE REAA 2008

22 June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT SPOTLIGHT ON . . . BOTANY DOWNS

Bold strategy for growth Botany has become a multicultural community where immigrants feel comfortable, reports Graham Hepburn

B

ack in the late 1990s developing a masterplanned town centre surrounded by more intensive housing was a radical concept for Auckland. These days it’s accepted practice as seen with developments such as Stonefields, Flat Bush and Hobsonville Point. As their forerunner, Botany Downs came in for some criticism with its cookie-cutter houses on smaller sites than most Aucklanders were used to, and a sparkling new shopping centre that looked like a Hollywood film set. But buyers liked the modern offerings of terraced housing or single-level brick and tile homes with internal access garaging, en suites and walk-in wardrobes and the convenience of low-maintenance sites. And they enjoyed the pedestrian-friendly combination of main street and mall shopping offered by Botany Town Centre. To the southeast of central Auckland, Botany Downs and its associated satellite suburbs such as Dannemora, Northpark and Burswood surround the intersection of two major arterial roads — Te Irirangi Drive and Ti Rakau Drive — that connect central Auckland with Manukau City. With this in mind, the then Manukau City Council identified the area as a node for intensive development and adopted a planning strategy for its growth and formed

The mix of cultures makes for a diverse array of activities throughout the year partnerships with private enterprise. At the heart of these suburbs, Botany Town Centre was built on a 17.6ha greenfields site near the intersection of Ti Rakau and Te Irirangi drives and has about 200 shops over three complexes. It has large public spaces among retail, entertainment and office buildings as well as a library that was a flagship for the old Manukau City Council. Sharleen Adams, of Bayleys, says Botany has become a multicultural community where immigrants feel comfortable. “The mix of cultures makes for a diverse array of activities throughout the year and means everyone entering the community can quickly feel welcome and feel like they belong,” she says. “Botany as an area is still somewhat affordable compared to other Eastern Suburbs locations, allowing those with a more modest budget to consider this as a possible location. There are really broad pricing options around Botany,

Residents enjoy the pedestrian-friendly combination of the main street and mall shopping at Botany Town Centre. allowing for all purchasers to consider this as a place to settle.” She says: “Botany offers an authentic Kiwi living experience with predominantly three-bedroom, single-level brick homes of around 200sq m to 220sq m on sections averaging between 450sq m and 700sq m. “With the new unitary plan, this living experience is going to become a rare find as time goes on due to the proposed terraced housing that will provide more houses per square metre of available land area.” Botany is also renowned for some more ostentatious houses boasting classical columns on their frontages, sometimes supporting two-storey-high porticos. There are also some apartments as well as the established medium-density developments Eastpark and Sacramento, that have two-storey terraced homes, and were an early model for more intensive housing. Sacramento, which had a

Photo / Ted Baghurst

Spanish adobe theme, was one of the biggest leaky building cases in the country and took a massive remediation job to sort out its issues. Schooling is also an attraction for buyers, with co-ed Botany College highly regarded and a drawcard for families moving into the area. Opened in 2004, it has more than 1800 pupils. Lloyd Elsmore Park is on the doorstep and has sports fields, gym, indoor sports courts, swimming pool and leisure centre. Adams says, “Botany is only 10 to 15 minutes’ drive to a number of fantastic Eastern Beaches, which are always bustling with locals and activities over the summer months. “Also, the ferry ride leaving Half Moon Bay across to Auckland is within easy access and makes for a much more relaxing trip in to the CBD rather than fighting the traffic on the motorway.”

Harcourts Botany Botany Town Centre (Beside Rockshop) P 09 261 3575 | E botany@harcourts.co.nz www.preetandco.co.nz Harcourts Preet & Co - Licensed REAA 2008

23

June 5, 2017 | PROPERTY REPORT

Recent sales: Botany Downs Clare Nicholson of Bayleys sold 173 Guys Rd for $877,000. This beautifully presented threebedroom, two-bathroom plaster home sits on a 433sq m section in a no-exit street. A brick and tile family home in a quiet, private location at 5 Sayes Close changed hands for $1.0805 million.

Property prices

Gary Robertson of Bayleys oversaw the sale of this four-bedroom, two-bathroom home with multiple living areas. He also sold 23 Eaglemont Dr, another brick and tile home, for $1.123 million. With three bedrooms and two bathrooms, this home sits on a nicely landscaped corner site of 553sq m.

An entry-level property such as a two- or threebedroom home sells for between $850,000 and $950,000. A comfortable three-bedroom home sells in a range of $950,000 to $1.25 million. Quality homes of four or more bedrooms start at $1.25 million.

Rents Rental stock is not abundant in this area but twoand three-bedroom homes rent for $500 to $600 a week, while four-bedroom homes rent for around $650 a week.

Schools Botany Downs School, Owairoa Primary School, Howick Intermediate, Pakuranga College, Sancta Maria College, Botany Downs Secondary College.

Best streets $1.123m: 23 Eaglemont Dr.

The eastern side of Chapel Rd heading up the hill offers some desirable real estate.

Local attractions Botany Town Centre If shopping is your thing, then this is the place for you. There’s a huge range of retail outlets in one of the biggest shopping centres in the country, as well as eateries, a library and movie complex. A mix of mall and main street shopping, the town centre also has night markets on Wednesdays. Lloyd Elsmore Park A sporting mecca with sports fields, gym, indoor sports courts, pool and leisure centre, Lloyd Elsmore Park (below) is also home to the Howick Historic Village, that brings colonial history alive with its displays and open days. Opened in 1981, the park is named after the former Manukau City mayor, who served from 1968 to 1983.

$877,000: 173 Guys Rd.

$1,080,500: 5 Sayes Cl.

BAYLEYS IN THE EASTERN DISTRICTS Bayleys Residential Sales covers the whole of Manukau District. Our successful residential sales team work with a strong network of vendors and buyers across Botany and surrounding areas developed through consistently providing exceptional service and delivering outstanding results. Bayleys’ market presence in the Eastern areas is flourishing. Your local Bayleys Office is centrally located in Harris Road for your convenience. Bayleys Manukau 09 534 5189 manukauresidential@bayleys.co.nz Bayleys Real Estate Ltd, Manukau, Licensed under the REA Act 2008