Growing calls to halt the South Warwickshire Local Plan's race against the clock were rejected on Tuesday despite fears it has too many flaws.

The joint plan between Warwick District Council (WDC) and Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC) remains deeply unpopular with residents and councillors of all parties after the government-instructed housing targets saw the volume of new homes required rocket.

It allocates land for more than 55,000 new homes across the two districts up to 2050, resulting in huge new settlements and mass bolt-ons to smaller communities.

Feedback from a national planning inspector led to an 11th-hour rejig with sites taken out but others intensified, including what has become a 2,200-home allocation in Bidford-on-Avon.

Objectors turned out in force at Tuesday's meeting in Leamington Spa, including many making the case to drop a 700-home plan for Kenilworth.

Councillors from both authorities then picked apart details which show that some sites are unlikely to be viable, expressing concern that the plan's language on delivering infrastructure is too vague and that its headroom – the extra housing to cater for sites that don't end up getting delivered – will prove too low for an inspector to approve.

Nevertheless, cabinet members from both councils felt this plan was better than no plan, arguing the area would be hit with the double whammy of homes on land that hasn't been allocated plus weakened or non-existent infrastructure requirements for developers.

They recommended going to Regulation 19 consultation – the last consultation stage before the national inspector judges whether the plan is sound – with both individual councils to vote whether to progress on Wednesday.

Neither council currently has a five-year housing land supply, increasing the risk of building in unwanted places, and a new plan would end that situation once it kicks in.

The fear is that an unviable plan will quickly unravel, taking both councils back to that unwanted position having also allocated sites that residents find undesirable.

This plan also needs to be submitted by the end of this calendar year if it is to be considered under the current system. If not, it is back to the drawing board and a lengthy process to meet new national requirements, but councillors fear the rush has left too many holes to go ahead.

Cllr Daren Pemberton said: "While I have the hugest respect for (planning officers), I regret to say that I am in the position I was immediately after the last joint-committee meeting.

"I no longer believe this plan is sound or deliverable and it should be left for us to go around again."

He referenced the need for 10 per cent headroom, arguing the current five per cent in the plan "isn't going to cut it". He also questioned whether the councils would get away with "looking to go beyond national standard" on net zero targets.

On viability he referenced Bidford, estimating up to £90 million would be needed for a new road bridge "that appeared (in the plan) a few weeks ago" and two new schools to support 2,200 homes.

"That is not deliverable, that is not sound, it is not going to pass muster," he said.

"We have got it wrong and I think we need to accept that."

While the five-year land supply gives the councils a headache, Councillor Alan Boad (WDC,Lib Dem, Leamington Lillington) noted that WDC's current plan runs to 2029 and SDC's to 2031.

They are still given weight in decisions, just not as much as a new plan would.

He argued there is still "time for us to make a difference, albeit on the new system" by dismissing the "artificial constraint" of the December 31 deadline that this plan is working to.

"This has to go through a government inspector and I am not convinced we will get a green light, there are too many things knocking about," he said.

"Nobody likes local plans but this one seems particularly bad and rushed towards the end from a very slow and bumpy start.

"We are paying for that now, trying to do changes in a six-week period that haven't been consulted on. We're potentially heading for disaster."

SDC's deputy leader Cllr Cowcher argued that the risks of delaying had been highlighted on his own patch.

"In Stratford we have lost two very substantial appeals in the past week and both have been granted with no infrastructure whatsoever," he said.

"In my own village in Wellesbourne we will have another 300 houses. We are already discharging raw sewage into the river, that won't be solved, and we have a primary school which is completely overloaded.

"No plan means you will get housing on appeal and not the infrastructure."

He also referenced keeping headroom as low as possible to prevent development in rural areas, something that was later picked up by WDC's Councillor Jonathan Chilvers (Green, Leamington Brunswick).

"Delivering more headroom means allocating more greenfield sites," he said.

"I don't want to add one more greenfield site than we have to so I don't apologise for the headroom being on the low side, I am here to protect every little bit of countryside that I can."

He insisted "developers have got away with infrastructure murder for many years" and argued "it would be a massive gamble to go down the no-plan route" before expressing frustration at national viability rules "baking in" 15 per cent profit for developers, something the councils "tried to challenge" without success.

"Hidden away in the small detail, that is effectively saying developer profit is more important than infrastructure – that is morally disgusting in my view," said Cllr Chilvers.