The development of new settlements on green field sites is of obvious interest to developers (relatively easy to do - e.g. no brown field pollutants to remove, control of the whole site etc..), and is attractive toi politicians (progressive impressions, newness,  opportunity to show green credentials), but they will face considerable local opposition, and will present problems in terms of sustainability (e.g. cost to develop - all that new infrastructure - sewers, roads, additional commuting).  One wonders if it might be more appropriate in terms of sustainability, preservation/enhancement of services and so forth, to develop carefully our existing country towns and villages. Any such proposals will, of course, also be opposed, given the inevitable human tendency to self-interest, but  might result in economies of scale offering improved employment opportunities, and, by virtue of the increased populations, improved prospects for local services (hospitals, schools, transport).  Our country towns and villages do seem to 'work', and have adapted/developed and survived for centuries in ways that some new towns have - to date at any rate - struggled to do.  If the CRC is interested in safeguarding existing rural settlements, and is concerned for their viability, it seems perverse to support proposals for new ones that could further threaten our old and, although in some cases perhaps vulnerable, well-established and generally liked, towns and villages.

http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/items/2772