Sites for Labour's New Towns that already have rail connections

[Bletchleyite]

Missed opportunity if it isn't called Houghton & Hillmorton.


Both MK and Runcorn suffer though from the severance, noise and air pollution caused by the enormous amount of land taken up by highways. Runcorn arguably worse as it has more grade-separated ones around its core, and thus faster vehicles. The railway does cause very small amounts of noise and severance to both, but obviously this is much lesser and could be better mitigated.

So you say, but from my experience MK is the least polluted place I've ever lived, and the road noise isn't disruptive on my life at all (but at night with a window open I can hear the WCML!)

I notice pollution in most traditional towns, sometimes you can even taste the particulates. Never in MK, the low density nature of it means it gets to disperse before I breathe it in. But if it was seen as a problem (no local does see it as a problem) it could be reduced considerably either by way of a ULEZ or by dropping the speed limits, or both.

 

[Starmill]

So you say, but from my experience MK is the least polluted place I've ever lived, and the road noise isn't disruptive on my life at all (but at night with a window open I can hear the WCML!)

I notice pollution in most traditional towns, sometimes you can even taste the particulates. Never in MK, the low density nature of it means it gets to disperse before I breathe it in. But if it was seen as a problem (no local does see it as a problem) it could be reduced considerably either by way of a ULEZ or by dropping the speed limits, or both.

Beechwood is literally hemmed in on four sides by grade-separated highways, one of which is the M56, one of the busiest roads in the country. It's really not ideal for layout by any means. MK avoids many of these pitfalls, but does still suffer from the severance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Beechwood is literally hemmed in on four sides by grade-separated highways, one of which is the M56, one of the busiest roads in the country. It's really not ideal for layout by any means. MK avoids many of these pitfalls, but does still suffer from the severance.

I don't really agree it suffers from it at all. What the grid does is create a collection of little villages with their own character, and because there are underpasses and bridges the roads don't feel a barrier like elsewhere. If anything the WCML through Bletchey is a greater severance as there's a long way between the Watling St bridge and the Buckingham Road one (another was nearly added about 10 years ago, but didn't happen in the end because it was an eyesore and in totally the wrong place).

The land use on roads may be wasteful, but the separation they provide is in many ways actually desirable when compared to typical suburban sprawl.

Take it from a local of 22 years that this isn't the main problem with MK - the problem is mostly the shape of it that makes effective public transport uncommercial (though it could be done if we'd accept higher taxation to fund it and central Government didn't interfere to prevent that).

 

[Starmill]

I don't really agree it suffers from it at all. What the grid does is create a collection of little villages with their own character, and because there are underpasses and bridges the roads don't feel a barrier like elsewhere. If anything the WCML through Bletchey is a greater severance as there's a long way between the Watling St bridge and the Buckingham Road one (another was nearly added about 10 years ago, but didn't happen in the end because it was an eyesore and in totally the wrong place).

The land use on roads may be wasteful, but the separation they provide is in many ways actually desirable when compared to typical suburban sprawl.

Take it from a local of 22 years that this isn't the main problem with MK - the problem is mostly the shape of it that makes effective public transport uncommercial (though it could be done if we'd accept higher taxation to fund it and central Government didn't interfere to prevent that).

Try walking from Willen to Broughton, Amazon to Wavendon or Oakridge Park to Stantonbury Leisure Centre, especially at 5pm in December, and tell me that doesn't feel anti-pedestrian. Those are very short journeys which should be active travel first - the basic principles of MK's layout fundamentally undermine any active travel provision without literally ripping the roads up and leaving the vehicular traffic nowhere to go despite still needing it to cover the lower density parts. Most people have absolutely zero desire to walk or cycle through a grotty underpass in the dark.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Try walking from Willen to Broughton, Amazon to Wavendon or Oakridge Park to Stantonbury Leisure Centre, especially at 5pm in December, and tell me that doesn't feel anti-pedestrian. Those are very short journeys which should be active travel first - the basic principles of MK's layout fundamentally undermine any active travel provision without literally ripping the roads up and leaving the vehicular traffic nowhere to go despite still needing it to cover the lower density parts. Most people have absolutely zero desire to walk or cycle through a grotty underpass in the dark.

Many people are paranoid about underpasses (not borne out by the crime stats), but (while it's not to Dutch standards by any level) I prefer walking and cycling in MK over any other place I've lived. In particular cycling.

As I said I wouldn't build it like that now, it's too car centric, but it's mostly perception of outsiders who just don't get it because it's different. A "folded beads on a string" New Town if I designed one would share many of its features such as fully segregated active travel routes so nobody need ever walk along a main road and lots of interspersed greenery. It'd just be beads on a figure 8 tramway string instead of a grid.

(Amazon to Wavendon is a poor example by the way, as Ridgmont isn't in MK and Wavendon is a traditional village, not a grid square, and the obstacle is the M1 - none of the MK design principles apply).

Willen to Broughton I've done (cycling) and I have no great issue with it at all other than maybe that the Redway lighting needs improvement.

Oakridge to Stantonbury I haven't, but Oakridge, Whitehouse and Broughton all fail to apply the core MK design principles correctly, so again I'm not surprised there are issues with these newer developments.

 

[Starmill]

Many people are paranoid about underpasses (not borne out by the crime stats), but (while it's not to Dutch standards by any level) I prefer walking and cycling in MK over any other place I've lived. In particular cycling.

As I said I wouldn't build it like that now, it's too car centric, but it's mostly perception of outsiders who just don't get it because it's different. A "folded beads on a string" New Town if I designed one would share many of its features such as fully segregated active travel routes so nobody need ever walk along a main road and lots of interspersed greenery. It'd just be beads on a figure 8 tramway string instead of a grid.

(Amazon to Wavendon is a poor example by the way, as Ridgmont isn't in MK and Wavendon is a traditional village, not a grid square, and the obstacle is the M1 - none of the MK design principles apply).

Not Ridgemont. Amazon behind the John Lewis warehouse.

Loads of MK's squares have a little bit of an old village or are newer and more "village-like" than the true MK grid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not Ridgemont. Amazon behind the John Lewis warehouse.

Not done that. But again some MK design principles have been disregarded around there (though it at least appears there are some underpasses). When they are, it usually works less well than it would if they were followed.

Glebe Farm drives an entire fleet of lorries through the original design principles, with houses and flats basically fronting a 60mph dual carriageway. It's nuts, looks like living there would be absolute hell. A bit like that newish estate on the side of Lancaster built facing the M6 with absolutely no noise protection at all, not even a row of Leylandii.

 

[Starmill]

Not done that. But again some MK design principles have been disregarded around there (though it at least appears there are some underpasses). When they are, it usually works less well than it would if they were followed.

The very newest estates appear to have all but jettisoned the original "MK principles". Maybe that's because it doesn't really have much the developers can use to market it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The very newest estates appear to have all but jettisoned the original "MK principles". Maybe that's because it doesn't really have much the developers can use to market it.

More likely it's expensive and doesn't tick modern day anti car boxes. But you can't turn MK anti car by shoving anti car estates on the side, all that does is make those estates horrible places to live.

The late 90s estates like North Furzton, Shenley Brook, Tattenhoe and Emerson Valley seem to have been as good as it got before the principles started being ignored.

 

[Starmill]

I don't think I've ever seen a single large housing development in this country in the past decade that could be considered anything approaching anti-car. Generally every single unit has one to two parking spaces. Mixed used towers with apartments and no car parking allocated to the apartments are about as close as you get, but nothing like that is being built in MK.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue the inherent advantages of the MK layout are hard to beat with alternatives. If the underpasses are an issue, it is entirely possible to design that layout without a single pedestrian/cycle underpass.

The public transport issue is a significant one but I believe it could be mitigated with proper choices made in advance. But we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater and MK is undoubtedly the most successful new urban area of the 20th Century in economic terms.

 

[Irascible]

The shortage is many millions of housing units, I'm not sure there are enough reasonable places for railway stations in the UK to make a major contribution to housing on that basis!

The shortage is also in schools, healthcare, utility provision and jobs in the right area. Devon is falling apart because of enforced house-building targets - try finding a dentist, for instance. Hospital waiting lists are atrocious ( Derriford in Plymouth has been one of the very worst in the country right now ) , schools have some of the biggest class sizes. There's far more to all this than just building houses. Jobs are migrating out of the small towns too which just makes the transport problem worse.

Build housing developments & encourage industry into the area at the same time - don't just build housing estates around stations, it's ruinous. Even if you don't go for full sized complete new towns, at least go for smaller versions.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I would like to suggest Tollerton, although not technically new it does have a rail connection and could easily be developed to deliver the same amount of housing as a new town.




If this doesn't qualify I would like to suggest a site between York and Thirsk approximately halfway between them both!

 

[Nottingham59]

Th

The cynic in me says which of those are in currently safe Tory seats? If they are then possible. If they are marginal, and are likely to go Labour at the election, forget it.

Housebuilding nimbyism is one of the things the Lib Dems have using to eat into safe South East seats/councils. With all the other u-turns Labour have done I'll be gobsmacked if building New Towns happens in marginal seats.

So would I. If I were Labour Housing minister, I'd get a map of constituency result after the next election and pick the biggest splodges of blue for my new towns. Create New Town development corporations, give them full planning powers, and tell them to get on with it.

 

[HSTEd]

So would I. If I were Labour Housing minister, I'd get a map of constituency result after the next election and pick the biggest splodges of blue for my new towns. Create New Town development corporations, give them full planning powers, and tell them to get on with it.

Most of these places would have enormous political cost to build in, even if they don't vote for the governing party.

Areas will be politically off limits because they are good farmland or because they are AONB or National Parks.

Any government can probably muster the political capital for one new urban area, so it has to be sized to do the job essentially alone

 

[Technologist]

So you say, but from my experience MK is the least polluted place I've ever lived, and the road noise isn't disruptive on my life at all (but at night with a window open I can hear the WCML!)

I notice pollution in most traditional towns, sometimes you can even taste the particulates. Never in MK, the low density nature of it means it gets to disperse before I breathe it in. But if it was seen as a problem (no local does see it as a problem) it could be reduced considerably either by way of a ULEZ or by dropping the speed limits, or both.

This, the urbanists who have a go at the US often miss that while the US is car dependant there is also a hell of a lot of provision for cars and road transport in general which feeds through to their standards of living and productivity.

The UK apart from Milton Keynes manages to combine US car policy with European car provision (or worse) for the worst of all worlds.

So would I. If I were Labour Housing minister, I'd get a map of constituency result after the next election and pick the biggest splodges of blue for my new towns. Create New Town development corporations, give them full planning powers, and tell them to get on with it.

It's a hell of a lot easier as a policy to draw an 800m circle around existing stations that are 45 minutes from a major city centre and remove any green belt protections in that area.

To enable this allow a regional transport authority to compulsory purchase that land under its current usage type and then to sell it on to developers. This money is then used to increase the rail service to London commuter belt levels.

As the land was acquired for much less than market value the regional transport agency can insist on very high design/build standards for the buildings as part of the plan.

Homes on the right tracks - Centre for Cities

Releasing green belt around more than one thousand existing commuter stations would solve the UK housing crisis.

www.centreforcities.org

I don't think I've ever seen a single large housing development in this country in the past decade that could be considered anything approaching anti-car. Generally every single unit has one to two parking spaces. Mixed used towers with apartments and no car parking allocated to the apartments are about as close as you get, but nothing like that is being built in MK.

Reducing car parking was tried by Prescott et al in the early 2000's. Was a disaster resulting in cars parked everywhere.

Such things only work if it is immediately feasible to be car free and the location is a place where said mostly young car free people would like to live.

All the transport and cycling provision need to come before developments with low amounts of parking emerge.

 

[Starmill]

All the transport and cycling provision need to come before developments with low amounts of parking emerge.

I completely agree with this. The issue is that simply cannot happen without the necessary public funding. It's pretty obvious current tax policy means that funding isn't and never will be available without politically-driven change to spending, either in the form of embracing greater borrowing or willingness to raise more through tax.

 

[I'm here now]

Rather then building new towns for commuters to the South East, I'd suggest a new town program in the North West and South West, with an industrial subsidy scheme (similar to the original new town programs) to relocate companies away from the South East.

North West:

Firstly, I'd propose a new town joining Rishton (which already has a station), Clayton-le-Moors and Great Harwood.
Land is cheap in the area, there is good motorway access, and you could link a tram system using the old Great Harwood loop alignment of the East Lancs line for the most part to serve the new developments with links into Blackburn and Burnley.
If the new town released additional transport-related funding, I'd electrify the east Lancs from the WCML to Colne and run the Preston - Colne stopper up to every 30 mins, if possible. This would link the new town into long distance services at Preston and services to Manchester/Leeds/Clitheroe/Blackpool at Blackburn/Burnley/Accrington.

Secondly, I'd select Acton Bridge in Cheshire as another potential site - the WCML station has good links to Liverpool and Birmingham, with stations at Cuddington and Greenbank close by towards Manchester and Chester.
Land is flat and not massively expensive in that area of Cheshire, and if you build towards Cuddington from Acton Bridge station, you're building away from the river Weaver and so avoid flooding issues in the area.
You also have the larger amenities a town of around 40 to 50k would need in Northwich or Runcorn, which are both reasonably nearby.



For the SW towns, I'd suggest St Germans as an initial development.
Good links into Plymouth/St Austell/Exeter by train, space to the west of the existing village to build on and establishing large industrial estates in the area would provide more much-needed jobs in a quite deprived county.

There's also potential to build a second station in the Liskeard direction, near Trerulefoot, to serve additional extensions if needed.

It is also a very desirable area to build in, with the picturesque Lynher valley to the east. Recreational infrastructure including hiking trails and parks could be developed along this area, as an eastern buffer to the large development.

The next place I'd consider would be Yeoford in Mid Devon. Regular services into Exeter on the Tarka line, and potential of more if small upgrades were made for the Okehampton service to be able to stop here.
Plenty of land is available in the area, it is relatively close to the A30, and being in the Yeo valley, land is reasonably flat.
The traditional agricultural economy in this part of Devon is currently struggling (partly due to the rising costs of farming), especially since some of the area supplements income via small-scale tourist enterprises.
As we've just seen for the last few years, the tourism and hospitality industry is not bulletproof, and the new town development could provide more secure employment for locals, as well as a nearby source of labour for the agricultural industry.
Again, there's potential for another station towards Okehampton/Barnstaple, if the new town was to build future extensions in the direction of Colebrooke/Penstone.

St Germans is quite unlikely in my mind. Port Eliot estate would probably block any serious proposals and locals might be nimby. If anything, it could be small. Nearby Menheniot could be upped in service and have development on the farmland leading to the village.

 

[Technologist]

Suburbia, whatever its faults, is popular for a reason and has been popular since before mass motoring was a significant factor in the UK.
Densities in cities, especially ones built using traditional UK housing technologies such as terraces have major downsides.

We are going to need major construction and the only way to get major construction is likely an MKC style new city built from scratch.

There are plenty of places in the UK which are both dense, pleasant to live in and full of families. They also tend to be the most expensive places to live in cities like London.

We don't have to build tower blocks or terraces. Mansion blocks or towns houses with shared gardens and liberal amounts of parks are certainly possible.

A few things need to be sorted like how to deal with affordability and anti-social behaviour.

The issue with MK type ideas is that MK has a population of 250k and took 50 years to achieve that. Assuming that MK has around 100k houses that equates to about 4 months of UK new house demand. Ergo you are looking at building hundreds of MKs simultaneously.

It's much easier and scalable to pull some central government levers around incentives and laws then devolve powers to lower levels of government and gets them to build thousands of large housing developments.

 

[AlastairFraser]

St Germans is quite unlikely in my mind. Port Eliot estate would probably block any serious proposals and locals might be nimby. If anything, it could be small. Nearby Menheniot could be upped in service and have development on the farmland leading to the village.

I would expect NIMBYs everywhere, but Menheniot is a decent alternative.

 

[Technologist]

I completely agree with this. The issue is that simply cannot happen without the necessary public funding. It's pretty obvious current tax policy means that funding isn't and never will be available without politically-driven change to spending, either in the form of embracing greater borrowing or willingness to raise more through tax.

I think the point would be that we need to give lower levels of government greater levels of tax and borrowing capabilities.

If the council was able to profit from development and spend those funds on transport it would be a method for building stuff out without reference to Treasury or the politics of tax rates.

 

[Nottingham59]

If the council was able to profit from development and spend those funds on transport it would be a method for building stuff out without reference to Treasury or the politics of tax rates.

I understand that is the whole point of the New Towns Act. It gives powers to compulsory purchase of undeveloped land at agricultural prices, wtih planning permission to develop it. Milton Keynes for instance was built at a profit to the Exchequer, even including the costs of infrastructure.

 

[HSTEd]

We don't have to build tower blocks or terraces. Mansion blocks or towns houses with shared gardens and liberal amounts of parks are certainly possible.

Shared gardens and parks tend to, in my experience, come with so many restrictions on use to be almost unusable.
Things like no alcohol, no music, no barbeques, no unsupervised children, nothing after dark etc etc etc etc.

The issue with MK type ideas is that MK has a population of 250k and took 50 years to achieve that. Assuming that MK has around 100k houses that equates to about 4 months of UK new house demand. Ergo you are looking at building hundreds of MKs simultaneously.

Milton Keynes was hardly constructed at a breakneck pace!
It was designed to grow organically as another city might.

We can certainly throw it up far faster if we just pump out prefabs on a production line.

It's much easier and scalable to pull some central government levers around incentives and laws then devolve powers to lower levels of government and gets them to build thousands of large housing developments.

It might be technically easier and more scalable, but it is politically impossible.

Local Government is entirely controlled by the anti-development lobby and there is no practical way I can see for that to change.

Too large a fraction of the general population simply does not want new construction near them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We don't have to build tower blocks or terraces. Mansion blocks or towns houses with shared gardens and liberal amounts of parks are certainly possible.

People don't want shared gardens. They want their own. They don't have to be big, though - indeed big is a negative as it takes more maintenance. They just need to be big enough for kids to play safely in, and have a well-designed, cosy feel (rather than just being grass on top of rubble as per many new homes). About 4 or 5 metres square is probably enough for most families (so the width of the house and the same amount deep), or the size of a large lounge, with a decent patio and some grass.

I do agree with your principle that three storey townhouses with private garden and allocated parking are likely to be more to the taste of UK buyers than three storey blocks of flats, though, and they take up about the same amount of space. Such houses are very common in new developments in Milton Keynes, and are basically just a more modern (and slightly more land-efficient*) version of the ubiquitous and popular Victorian terrace.

* Victorian terraces are narrow but go back a long way to give you the second reception room that just isn't useful to modern families and tends just to sit idle (or some people convert the back lounge into a bigger kitchen). Three storey townhouses avoid that by having the extra floor. Some might be nervous of that because you couldn't easily escape a fire out of the window without injury like you can from a two storey house, but most people probably aren't that bothered, and not everyone could physically do that anyway, it rather depends on having the hand/arm strength to lower yourself down to arms length before dropping, and not having brittle bones like older people tend to.

The issue with MK type ideas is that MK has a population of 250k and took 50 years to achieve that. Assuming that MK has around 100k houses that equates to about 4 months of UK new house demand. Ergo you are looking at building hundreds of MKs simultaneously.

The other issue with MK sized towns is that they're complex to serve well by public transport (even if you do it on a radial layout rather than a grid). The trouble with a large radial city is that the radial roads get too far apart as you get further out, so you need more bus routes including circular ones and ones that divert into estates.

The biggest you can serve optimally is something about Runcorn or Skelmersdale sized (50-100K population), with two figure-8 tram routes at 90 degrees giving a 4 leaf clover type shape (and cycle routes alongside), with the housing developed so as to put everyone within 500m walk/cycle of a public transport stop. You need no bus routes at all then, only the loops. Where that gives you gaps, you turn them into public green space and nature reserves. Thus to me building ecotowns like this along railway lines that are typically underused and serve large cities is the best plan - lines like the Marston Vale are ideal.

The way to progressively build a town like that would be to build on one figure 8 first then add the second one (and its tram service) later. You could potentially start with only one leaf with the tram reversing at the centre rather than going round onto the other leaf.

 

[Technologist]

I understand that is the whole point of the New Towns Act. It gives powers to compulsory purchase of undeveloped land at agricultural prices, with planning permission to develop it. Milton Keynes for instance was built at a profit to the Exchequer, even including the costs of infrastructure.

My argument with new towns isn't the principle but the capacity. The final 5 (larger) new towns added housing for less than half a million people over a 50 year period, and the with the exception of Milton Keynes probably about 25% of that growth would have happened anyway.

If you build on land with no public amenity 800m from existing commuter railway stations there is space for in the region of 2 million dwellings.

The government doesn't have a capacity or the political capital to build 50 Milton Keynes as these are centrally driven projects. Whereas the building of millions of homes can be devolved to regional bodies and they can put the funds into both transport for the new homes but also civic features for the residents of nearby towns that will be affected.

In case of the plan advocated by Centre for Cites the North East Councils would be pocketing about £4 billion, Birmingham £11 billion and Manchester £15 billion (I've adjusted for inflation vs the 2019 report). With those sort of incentives the local politicians will sell that scheme pretty effectively!

 

[Magdalia]

People don't want shared gardens.

Never underestimate the importance of gardens, they are an integral part of English culture. In particular an English house needs two gardens, an open front garden that is for display and a closed rear garden that is a private space.

Generally speaking it is quite hard to see into most back gardens and from the window of a train is the best place to see them. It is one of the reasons why some people don't like to live near railway lines.

Lots of English people struggle with balconies because the people who think their balcony is a front garden don't like the people who think their balcony is a back garden.

I do agree with your principle that three storey townhouses with private garden and allocated parking are likely to be more to the taste of UK buyers than three storey blocks of flats, though, and they take up about the same amount of space. Such houses are very common in new developments in Milton Keynes, and are basically just a more modern (and slightly more land-efficient*) version of the ubiquitous and popular Victorian terrace.

Three storey town houses are becoming quite common on new developments in and around Cambridge, often with a large SUV size garage built into the ground floor.

The Victorians often did three storeys by including a basement and raising the ground floor to about half a storey above street level. This inevitably involved steps up to the front door which would not be acceptable now.

 

[Technologist]

Shared gardens and parks tend to, in my experience, come with so many restrictions on use to be almost unusable.
Things like no alcohol, no music, no barbeques, no unsupervised children, nothing after dark etc etc etc etc.

Depends on how many houses and what degree of social capital the residents have. I'm thinking more like the private gardens that might be shared by a group of 20 or less houses where the back garden would be. You'd have to set up a home owners association with fees and similar which could decide what the reasonable usage of the garden would be. I'd also include 5-10 years of advisory/arbitration support to the HOA to get them to the point where they can deal with disputes/ learn how to operate and have a framework for dealing with stuff like investment and renovation.

They sure as hell shouldn't be operated by an agent or building management company who will certainly put in all the restrictions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends on how many houses and what degree of social capital the residents have. I'm thinking more like the private gardens that might be shared by a group of 20 or less houses where the back garden would be. You'd have to set up a home owners association with fees and similar which could decide what the reasonable usage of the garden would be. I'd also include 5-10 years of advisory/arbitration support to the HOA to get them to the point where they can deal with disputes/ learn how to operate and have a framework for dealing with stuff like investment and renovation.

If you want that in the UK (with its attendant complexity and arguments) you're in a tiny, tiny minority. An Englishman's home is his castle, and that includes private outdoor space. I don't think anyone I know would prefer a communal garden over their own, even if their own was to be very small or even just a Victorian terrace style yard (which can be made nice places by cladding the wall/floor and adding stuff like lighting and potted plants if desired).

Never underestimate the importance of gardens, they are an integral part of English culture. In particular an English house needs two gardens, an open front garden that is for display and a closed rear garden that is a private space.

I'm not sure about that - I find my front garden a nuisance, it's just grass I have to cut (I'm not a gardener). But being straight onto the pavement isn't nice either. I think most people would be satisfied with the small 1.5ish metre by the width of the house courtyard that's quite common on bay fronted terraces - you can do nothing with it and it still looks fine, but if you want the display element you can make it look very nice with a decorative front fence and potted plants.

I would agree that almost every English person wants private outdoor space of some kind.

Lots of English people struggle with balconies because the people who think their balcony is a front garden don't like the people who think their balcony is a back garden.

True. But also typically on UK developments balconies are way too small to be useful. I'd actually rather a "Juliet" (fake) balcony than a very small proper one that's so small you can't actually do anything with it. Being big enough to fit a full sized outdoor dining table and 4 chairs is the bare minimum but ideally you need bigger than that.

 

[urbophile]

Never underestimate the importance of gardens, they are an integral part of English culture. In particular an English house needs two gardens, an open front garden that is for display

...of the SUV.

I find my front garden a nuisance, it's just grass I have to cut (I'm not a gardener).

Plant shrubs instead.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

It would be interesting to see research on this supposed attachment to garden space. My suspicion is that it may be significantly less in the under-40s.

(We have no front garden, opening directly onto the pavement instead, and it’s fine. Our back garden is more a very small “yard” and we barely use it. Living in a small town with easy access to the countryside and to the town park/playground means the communal space is much more appealing.)