The 15 best-value commuter towns for people working in London, according to new research from one of Britain's top estate agents

'A cynic,' Oscar Wilde once wrote, 'is someone who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.'

It's a particularly apt line when thinking about property. Those living in Britain's far-flung corners are able to buy a huge house with vast swathes of land for the price of a two-bedroom flat in one of London's smarter postcodes. The price might be the same but the value proposition is entirely different: museums, restaurants and 10-minute Tube rides across the Metropolis vs wide-open skies, your own ballroom, space for a flock of sheep and a 15-hour commute on days when you need to be in the office.

The thing is, weighing up South Kensington against South Uist is easy: the tricky bit comes when you have to weigh up far more similar options. For those whose working lives involve being in London a few days a week, there is a vast swathe of commutable towns to choose from — especially for those whose families are far enough away from the capital that it doesn't make much odds if they settle in Sevenoaks or St Albans.

And that's the question that Savills are attempting to answer with their latest report — a report based on actual research, rather than just tapping 'where should I live near London' into ChatGPT.

Very helpfully, Savills chopped their research up into three sections: towns commutable in under 30 minutes; towns commutable in 30-60 minutes; and towns commutable in 60-90 minutes.

Then, they compared the annual cost of buying three-bedroom house within 5km of a railway station, plus an annual season ticket, to the average cost of owning a property in Zone 2. Then, to add a quality-of-life element to the tables, they used the Index of Multiple Deprivation — which looks at crime rates, employment and education, among other measures — to pick 'locations in the least deprived 20% in their wider region',

Top of each category were Shenfield, Essex; Rugby, Warwickshire; and Long Buckby, in Northamptonshire, which was also named the overall winner. You can see the top-fives in each category on this page.

Jamie Stephenson of Savills in Chelmsford praised Shenfield's transport links, which include the new Elizabeth line. But it also sounds like a nice place to live: 'Old Shenfield, with its leafy streets and period homes, along with a lively high street full of independent shops and cafés, adds to the town’s appeal,' he says,

Rugby, meanwhile, is 'exceptionally well connected by road and rail, and the schools – particularly the prestigious Rugby School – are excellent,' according to Nick Rudge, a director at Savills Banbury, adding that the place is 'a classic market town with a mix of period homes and leafy estates ideal for families.' Even taking into account the £10,000+ season ticket price, the town's modest house prices make it 64.7% cheaper to live in than Zone 2

As for overall winner Long Buckby? It's a small village of around 4,500 people, and perhaps because of that Savills don't seem to have rustled up an agent happy to comment, which does seem a little strange.

That's not the only strange thing on the list. In the 30-60 minute commute list, for example. Harlington and Flitwick are a stop apart from each other on the same train line, with Leighton Buzzard also close by.

And in the 30-minute commute list, Furze Platt in fifth place is actually an area and station within Maidenhead, listed in fourth.

Perhaps strangest of all is the inclusion of Stafford — yes, in Staffordshire — from where the quickest trains really do get to London Euston in under 90 minutes, despite the fact that it's 150 miles or so. A three-bedroom house is just £219,682 — but the season ticket will cost you £14,756.

Is that the tail wagging the dog? It sounds like it, and it's hard to imagine anyone taking the option of commuting from this far away unless they have family and friends in Stafford.

As ever with research like this, it's an interesting comparison, a talking point and, for some, will be a useful starting point for research. And at least it's more scientific than ChatGPT — which, for what it's worth, suggested Chatham, in Kent.