Sweetpeach,
That, obviously, is the driving factor for the gov't so that they can get votes from people because it looks like they're creating affordable housing for them.
But this is a very naive approach. Let's say a company wants to build a development of 50 homes. The road going by the home site is already pretty congested, the water supply is barely capable of reaching the existing homes and there's one school with 40 kids to each class. Also, the bus comes by once every half hour if lucky.
The developer is going to try to weasle away with as little cost as possible on their end. They may even "promise" to improve conditions. But there don't seem to be guarantees in place and nothing gets improved or nothing can get improved.
The proposed development I raised went by a single lane (on each side) road out to villages and in the morning after 8.00 it is a nightmare of a congested area. It is not physically possible to widen the road, it is constrained by existing houses or farms on either side.
Fortunately, the councilors stuck to their guns and agreed that once building started there was no going back on the greenfield, it would be lost forever.
Whatever happened to building on brownfield sites? The fear is that most of the greenfield in this country gets permission to built upon and that's it, game over, the countryside is gone.