ALMOST 29,000 homes could be built in the region over the next 20 years despite residents calling for fewer properties.

Members of the planning committee of the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) say that 28,900 homes a year can be built, but that is more than the 25,500 a year that people who were consulted on preferred.

However, it is not as many as the 36,000 a year that the Government wants.

At the committee meeting on Monday, June 13, Colin Byrne, director of the Government Office for the South East, said: "We strongly advise the assembly to look at a higher figure for housing."

He told the Free Press that the Government had the power to impose different figures after a public inquiry. But Government figures would have to be reasonable and based on evidence.

People in the region, which stretches from Bucks to Kent, were asked for their views on the three sets of annual housing growth figures.

Chiltern district councillor Don Phillips said that the figures and Mr Byrne's remarks annoyed him, while Peter Hardy, leader of South Bucks District Council, said Mr Byrne's remarks made a mockery of the whole process.

He was suspicious about plans to build houses at a higher rate at the beginning of the process.

And he was not sure whether basing housing figures on an expected rate of economic growth was valid.

The full regional assembly meets on July 13 to decide whether to back the 28,900 figure.

Cllr Phillips said the vast majority of people wanted housing growth at the lowest level.

He was scathing about a report saying that people who responded to the consultation document were self-selecting and older.

He said their views were not necessarily as valid as those contacted for face to face interviews.

Rodney Royston, Buckinghamshire County Council's cabinet member for planning, and a member of the assembly planning committee, said 28,900 could be acceptable.

He said: "We want to work out what is right for Bucks. I am working this out with the districts.

"We can't keep having figures handed down to us. It has to be bottom-up."

He added: "I say that we should look at what we can take in each district and from there see what the real implications are."