"There was one decrease in the West Midlands – Stoke on Trent (-4.0%)."
Just one in the Midlands, in a slightly rising national housing market. That seems to imply that there must be something remarkable to have caused that, when all around was different (Staffordshire Moorlands at 9.1% growth, for instance). Especially as demand in the city saw a big increase:
"Rochdale (+56%) and Stoke-on-Trent (+53%) have seen the largest increase in demand over the course of the year"
Selling-time here is also very good:
"Other cities that saw houses flying off the market were Bristol (61 days), Stoke-on-Trent (70 days),"
So demand goes up, homes sell quickly, but... the average price goes down? Curious. The Council's new tranche of "£1 homes" in the city can't have caused the dip, as not enough were released to make much a difference to the overall average. So I have to wonder if the 4% fall was due to that relentless negative publicity about the city, putting off a small proportion of nervous buy-to-let investors and downshifting incomers from outside the city? It'll be interesting to see of there are any articles in The Sentinel in the next few days, explaining the 4% fall in prices.