Most affordable commuter hotspots revealed
The findings from property site Zoopla come as 76% of UK employees now commute at least three days a week, and 39% have returned to the office full-time.
London remains the UK's dominant economic centre, and its most expensive housing market. The average home in the capital is now valued at £588,300, making ownership unattainable for many. Yet for those willing to move outside the capital and commute in, the savings can be significant.
According to Zoopla, commuters can cut their housing costs by more than half, on average 56%, by living in towns with direct links to London that are under an hour away.
Peterborough, for instance, offers a 50-minute train ride to King's Cross and an average home value of £238,800. Other strong contenders include Wellingborough and Kettering, with average prices of £245,400 and £261,500 respectively, and direct access to St Pancras station in under an hour.
Read more: Mortgages as low as 3.73% as lenders follow Bank of England rate cut
In the south-east, Chatham emerges as one of the most cost-effective and connected options. With commuting times of 40 to 44 minutes to three different London stations — St Pancras, Victoria, and London Bridge — and an average home price of £279,200.
Other affordable commuter towns include Luton (£305,700), Rugby (£281,100), and Purfleet-on-Thames (£248,400), all providing direct rail access into London in under an hour.
The biggest relative savings, however, are to be found outside the capital. In Shildon, County Durham, the average home costs just £73,800, compared to £189,880 in nearby Newcastle, a 61% discount with a 55-minute commute. A similar saving can be found in New Tredegar, where the average property is £108,600, versus £280,760 in Cardiff.
In Scotland, commuters to Edinburgh can find homes in Wishaw (£111,670) and Shotts (£114,080) — offering discounts of 61% and 60% respectively on the capital's average price of £287,110.
Commuters to Bristol and Birmingham also have strong savings potential. Newport, just an 18-minute train ride from Bristol, has homes priced at £214,700, a 43% discount. Meanwhile, Tipton and Wednesbury, within 25 minutes of Birmingham, offer 14% savings, with average prices under £200,000.
Read more: UK house sellers cut asking price by average £10,000
'As we've seen, the move back to more time in the office is back on the agenda for a vast number of people in the UK,' said Daniel Copley, consumer expert at Zoopla. 'With affordability becoming an increasingly important consideration for home buyers, many are having to widen their search area and need help to understand their options. Our analysis provides a useful guide to some of the most affordable commuting hotspots that offer the best of both worlds."
'The savings on offer are substantial, especially for those commuting into major regional cities like Newcastle and Cardiff, where buying a home just an hour outside of the city can save you a massive 61%,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liberty Steel's Speciality Steels UK pushed into compulsory liquidation
One of the UK's last remaining steel companies has been pushed into compulsory liquidation. Speciality Steels UK (SSUK), part of the Liberty Steel empire owned by metals tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, employs nearly 1,500 people at sites in Rotherham and several other locations across South Yorkshire. Behind Tata Steel and British Steel, it is the third-largest steel producer in the country. Politics live: Sky News reported that for a deal to rescue the firm, however, they seem to have been rendered unsuccessful. The government-run Insolvency Service confirmed it will be acting as the liquidator. It added that Teneo Financial Advisory Limited would be assisting run the company from now on. While the GFG Alliance, the holding company, says it is disappointed by the decision, local politicians and unions are highly critical of the group. The government says wages will continue to be paid by the liquidator. A spokesperson adds that the government is still "committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel making jobs in the UK". Financial assistance was not able to given to SSUK by the government due to its existing financial and corporate challenges, including ownership and management. Read more In a statement today, GFG's chief transformational officer, Jeffrey Kabel said: "The decision to push Speciality Steel UK into compulsory liquidation, especially when we have support from the world's largest asset manager to resume operations and facilitate creditor recovery, is irrational. "The plan that GFG presented to the court would have secured new investment in the UK steel industry, protecting jobs and establishing a sustainable operational platform under a new governance structure with independent oversight. "Instead, liquidation will now impose prolonged uncertainty and significant costs on UK taxpayers for settlements and related expenses, despite the availability of a commercial solution. "Liberty has pursued all options to make its SSUK viable, including efficiency improvements, reorganisations, customer support, several attempts to find a buyer for the business and intensive negotiations with creditors to restructure debt liabilities. Liberty's shareholder has invested nearly £200m, recognising the vital role steel plays in supplying the UK's strategic defence, aerospace and energy industries. "GFG will now continue to advance its bid for the business in collaboration with prospective debt and equity partners and will present its plan to the official receiver. GFG continues to believe it has the ideas, management expertise and commitment to lead SSUK into the future and attract major investment. GFG's other significant business interests in the UK remain unaffected. "Despite many challenges facing the group and the difficult market conditions, GFG has invested over £2bn into the UK economy since 2013, ensuring the survival of many GFG businesses despite operating losses and safeguarding thousands of jobs that would otherwise have been lost." Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, said GFG's statement was "full of hollow promises". She added: "We know Liberty is a golden goose, but one they have starved for years. "The speciality steel we make is unique and in high demand, it makes no financial sense that GFG furloughed the plant for nearly two years. "Strategically, the government cannot allow Liberty Steel to fail. I am confident they will do all in their power to let it flourish." Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, the national officer for the GMB union, also attacked GFG. She said: "This is another tragedy for UK steel - and the people of South Yorkshire - this time brought on by years of chronic mismanagement by the owners. "But this represents an opportunity for the UK government to take decisive action - as it did with British Steel - to protect this vital UK industry." A government spokesperson said: "We know this will be a deeply worrying time for staff and their families, but we remain committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel making jobs in the UK. "It is now for the independent Official Receiver to carry out their duties as liquidator, including ensuring employees are paid, while we also make sure staff and local communities are supported."
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The UK's year of climate U-turns exposes a deeper failure
We're now halfway through the UK government's critical decade for tackling climate change – and 2025 is fast becoming a year of climate U-turns. Airport expansions have been approved, the phaseout of gas-fired boilers shelved and, under the government's latest industrial strategy, green levies on industrial energy bills that support renewables have been slashed. All while key indicators of global climate stability are deteriorating. As carbon budget and energy policy researchers, we believe the UK's official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), are failing to hold the government accountable for backsliding on climate action. Worse still, the CCC's recommendation that the UK reach net zero emissions by 2050 does not align with international commitments to limit global warming to 1.5°C and 'well below 2°C'. It also fails to reflect the UN principle of fairness and equity whereby wealthier nations like the UK cut emissions earlier and faster than poorer countries. In fact, it systematically undermines these promises, with the CCC's 2025 seventh carbon budget (a landmark report that advises the UK government how to tackle its emissions for the period 2025-2050) a case in point. Hiding carbon colonialism As a signatory to UN climate agreements, the UK is obligated to 'take precautionary measures' based on 'best available scientific knowledge' to prevent 'threats of serious or irreversible damage' to the climate. This includes setting carbon budgets rooted in the principles of equity and with a high chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Yet, scientists warn this window is closing fast. Recent research concludes that from 2025, the world can emit no more than 160 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) for a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C. Despite this, the CCC uses a global carbon budget almost 50% higher, at 235GtCO₂. Internationally, the UK ranks tenth in wealth, fourth in historical cumulative emissions, and has per capita historical emissions four times the global average. Yet, the CCC disregards the UN principle that wealthy nations, whose prosperity was built on fossil fuels, must shoulder greater responsibility to rapidly cut emissions. With just 0.84% of the global population, the UK's equal share of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget (160 GtCO₂) would be 1.34 GtCO₂. The CCC allocates it 3.7 GtCO₂ – nearly three times its equal per person share. However, even an equal share allocation would fall far short of the UN's equity framework. Past CCC analyses have likewise embedded significant inequities. Such misappropriation of the carbon budget shifts the burdens of climate change on to more vulnerable communities globally, prioritising the UK's high-carbon norms over the right of low-income nations to sustainable development. The CCC's departure from the UN's core equity principle reveals how colonial norms remain deeply embedded in climate policy. Carbon removal roulette Major societal transformations, such as moving from private car to public transport, are largely absent from the CCC's recommendations. In contrast, large-scale engineered removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fossil fuel carbon capture and storage are assumed to be technically and socio-economically feasible. The CCC definition of 'feasible' prioritises near-term political convenience over scientific integrity and climate stability. Despite a 4% decline in car travel over the past decade, the CCC estimates a per person increase of 10% by 2050. By avoiding pathways that challenge consumption norms, the CCC sidelines proven approaches like reducing car dependence or enforcing robust energy efficiency standards. This highly cautious approach to behavioural change contrasts sharply with its assumptions on the future deployment of CDR, projecting UK engineered removals to increase from 0-13MtCO₂ by 2035, and 36MtCO₂ by 2050 – or nine and 26 times the total global level in 2024. This scale of expansion contradicts historical trends. Similar heroic assumptions underpin CCS projections in electricity and blue hydrogen production (from natural gas). The CCC proposes the UK capture and store 33 MtCO₂ annually by 2050, triple the current global rate – for a technology that has barely advanced despite decades of promises and investment. While some carbon removal is necessary to offset 'impossible to mitigate' emissions from agriculture – for example, nitrous oxide from fertiliser use – using CDR to justify ongoing fossil fuel use is a high-risk approach that undermines the Paris climate commitments. Read more: Nature-based carbon removal options are also overstated. The CCC projects removing 30 MtCO₂ per year by 2050 but insufficiently addresses the impacts on food security and land conflicts. Though reforesting offers ecological benefits, climate-driven wildfires, droughts and pests can rapidly re-release stored carbon. Such insecure carbon storage cannot offset guaranteed emissions from burning fossil fuels. Ultimately, the CCC is deeply conservative on near-term changes to consumption norms, while embracing dangerously optimistic projections of future carbon removal technologies. It accepts temperatures will overshoot global targets significantly, and banks on future correction – despite the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping points. Hard truth The allure of the CCC's net zero 2050 advice is that it claims to offer a pathway to avoid both major social transformation and a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, yet still meet the UK's fair share of the 1.5°C commitment. This politically appealing interpretation is scientifically flawed, downplays the gravity of climate risks and disregards principles of international justice. The CCC and others must stop being silent on these critical issues and end the carbon colonialism at the heart of the climate agenda. The UK's net zero 2050 framing isn't just delaying urgent action, it normalises ecological breakdown while maintaining the illusion of responsible stewardship. It worsens climate impacts and undermines preparedness by presenting inadequate measures as 1.5°C compatible. A fundamental rethink of the UK's climate policy requires a consensus that is grounded in equity, scientific integrity and transformative ambition. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Kevin Anderson is presenting views here that belong to the named authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Chris Jones has received funding from UKRI. The views in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Gaurav Gharde does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Now Would Be a Good Time for a Career Tune-Up
I'm writing with two reasons you might want to get a status update on your job. First, the gloomy one: There are signs the labor market is shifting into a lower gear globally. The US recently clocked the worst three months for job growth since the pandemic. Applications for US unemployment benefits rose last week to the highest level since June. My colleague north of the border just wrote about how young Canadians are getting 'ghosted' by potential employers at frustrating rates amid a deepening jobs crisis. And on the other side of the pond, Britons have been muddling through a labor market notching superlatives for all the wrong reasons.
