Possibly more stability in the food supply as there are more more small farms probably with higher crop variety
Smaller farms that don't produce much of a surplus are very vulnerable to swings in the productivity of the land from year to year and can produce famines more easily than larger farms that produce surplus that can be traded in a more advanced economy. There's a reason why, even in dirt-cheap landed America, farms usually didn't approach the tiny, postage stamp five to ten acres a subsistence farming peasant in early modern Europe might consider adequate. It's just not something you want to do if you can avoid it.
It's also something the state loves, because bigger surpluses mean that more can be taxed away without endangering the farmer's subsistence (the make-or-break point in a lot of historical tax revolts). That makes it hard to see an English/British state turning against enclosure in the 17th and 18th century,
especially earlier on when the land taxes made up a huge chunk of Royal revenues.
You're probably looking at something like a durable Leveller victory in Commonwealth political struggles that takes a more and more Digger approach to the Land Question as the decades drag on. A Restoration, of course, being out of the question.