I couldn't resist trying a comparison exercise to see whether any places feature both in this thread as perceived "nice" towns; and in the concurrent thread, as perceived "rubbish" ditto. (No obvious reason why not, or that it need be a flat-out contradictory matter: many things in this world are not "all of a piece".) I've observed "pro" and "con" opinions in the respective threads: on Stevenage, and Settle; Hastings and Southport drew a little "flak" in the "Rubbish Towns" thread -- but found, in that thread, more defenders than "antis". (
@yorksrob here, as quoted below: for this poster, Settle, Hastings and Southport rate as "nice".) Quite a number of other towns rated in this thread as "nice", had their names cited in the "Rubbish" thread; but as instances of OK places, in contrast to all the hell-holes.
@yorksrob -- interested to see your approval of Cromer. I have no first-hand experience of the place -- have travelled through it by train a few times, but never alighted there. However, on another (non-rail) message board which I spend time on: there's a frequent poster who is a lifelong inhabitant of Cromer -- in his posts on that board, he gives a picture of much about the town, that's decidedly ugly: high incidence of crime / violence / alcoholism / drug addiction / mental illness; and general seaside-resort-that's-seen-better-days syndrome. (He does see, and refer to, a likeable side to Cromer as well.) As above, of course -- little in life is all good or all bad, and different people can have, sincerely, different perceptions.
From my part of the world: on passing through Henley-in-Arden, it has struck me as a thoroughly pleasant smallish town.