Overall score
Chipping Norton
48.0/100
Pleasure Point
43.1/100
Chipping Norton for investment and value; Pleasure Point for families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Chipping Norton
48.0/100
Pleasure Point
43.1/100
Crime rate
Chipping Norton
168.6 / 1k
Pleasure Point
13.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Chipping Norton
124
Pleasure Point
10
Population
Chipping Norton
9,412
Pleasure Point
606
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100
Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.
Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.
| Category | Chipping Norton | Pleasure Point |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 48.0/100 | 43.1/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 45.0/100 | 12.7/100 |
| Crime rate | 168.6 / 1k | 13.7 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 7 | 5 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 28 | 1 |
| Public transport stops | 109 | 7 |
| Walkability | 61.0/100 | 10.5/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 124 | 10 |
| Planning activity | 23 | 2 |
| Green cover | 15.5% | 1.4% |
| Population | 9,412 | 606 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 8/10 | 10/10 |
Put side by side, Chipping Norton is an energetic metro established suburb where cafés and local life overlap, and Pleasure Point is a metro smaller community with a gently premium housing feel and familiar suburban calm. Chipping Norton sits in a middle-ring position, whereas Pleasure Point is further out with more breathing room.
Chipping Norton pulls ahead on housing affordability, schools and education options, and parks and reserves, whereas Pleasure Point is the better pick for a quieter safety profile, a calmer planning outlook, and stronger socioeconomic advantage.
Choose Chipping Norton if you are weighing investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools; lean toward Pleasure Point for retirees and families.
Generated from the official metrics on this page. It can omit nuance or contain errors — check the tables and source notes before relying on it.