My friend is a single mum with a 3yr old, and will be moving from Europe to somewhere within reasonable distance of London, but she likes her greenery and fresh air, but also would want a town that's lively not dull (within reason). Budget is 250-270K to actually pay as opposed to asking price. She won't be commuting to London at this stage, but does want to visit friends /take dc there easily.
She can't rent. Asked me for advice and I 've related that these two were recommended on MN for all these reasons. But which one is better - nicer train journey, fares prices, which is more friendly (incl to euro foreigners), and with things to do. She's quite arty (but arts not essential as can go to London). Which is a better value for money for a period (up to the 30s) 3-bed with a small garden in a nice road - and a better investment? The house can't be tiny. To me, F seems a better value, but maybe the commute is worse.
Which place is nicer in the winter iykwim, doesn't feel to cut off with nowhere to go in the eves?
It has to be south of L, as her friends are in Sutton and this side of London, but both of these she doesn't like (too crowded). I think Berks and Surrey is out due to high prices even though could be an option.