Two councils have launched legal challenges over the government's requirement to build thousands of homes on green belt land in their areas in the South East Plan.

Guildford Borough Council and South Oxfordshire District Council have served legal papers to the High Court.

The decisions by the councils come just days before the six week time limit ran out for challenges to the plan, which was finalised by the government in early May, closed.

Guildford is issuing a legal challenge on the grounds that the plan’s requirement for a green belt review to the north east of Guildford town has not been subject to a full environment appraisal.

It also argues that the requirement for the building of 2,000 houses on this site has not been justified.

Lead councillor for environment Jenny Wicks added: "We recognise that there should be more houses in Guildford, but not to this extent. Our residents voiced their concerns in their thousands to government last year but unfortunately the plan was not changed to take account of them.

"We are even more disappointed to find at the end of this process that the secretary of state appears not to have followed his own rules and this is why we are challenging this part of the South East Plan".

South Oxfordshire District Council is taking the government to court over the plans to allow Oxford City Council to build 4,000 homes in South Oxfordshire on green belt land south of Oxford.

Cabinet member for planning Angie Paterson said: "The city should use underdeveloped land within its own boundaries to build housing instead of trying to commandeer a large area of green belt that provides the unique setting for Oxford and contains some beautiful South Oxfordshire villages."

But Mid Sussex, which had also taken legal advice over whether to challenge the plan, is not going to do so.

Landmark chambers barrister Matthew Reed advised the council that in this case it does not have a reasonable prospect of succeeding in such a challenge.

Cabinet member for planning James Temple-Smithson said: "In light of the legal advice we have received, we have reluctantly concluded that we would not be justified in spending taxpayers’ money on further opposition."