THOUSANDS of council house tenants have added their voices to a debate on the future of their homes.

After months of discussions over the future ownership and management of its housing stock, Wear Valley District Council is expected to reach a decision on July 7.

The proposed shake-up is designed to improve the quality of all 5,400 local authority homes in the district.

Two choices were offered to tenants. Large-scale voluntary transfer would mean giving ownership and management of council houses to a housing association.

The alternative would be to set up an arms-length management organisation, an independent company operating under the terms of a management agreement.

In March, councillors deferred their decision because only a handful of people responded to the first round of public consultation.

A second attempt to canvass views, which included questionnaires sent to each home and public meetings, was greeted with an overwhelming response.

Ten times more people offered their views on the issue, an increase from four per cent to 43.5 per cent.

Service development officer Richard Roddam would not reveal which option had won the tenants' vote.

He said: "The responses to consultation on housing stock options have given a clear indication of what tenants want. There was a split of 70 per cent to 30 per cent in favour of one option.

"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is happy that the council will now make the right decision."

The council's handling of the issue was subject to a series of complaints to the Audit Commission, which regulates councils' work, by Norman Button, secretary of the Woodhouse Close Estate Residents' Group, in Bishop Auckland.

He was concerned that the publicity issued did not give accurate details about the funds the council could utilise to make home improvements if it was to retain housing stock, an option that had been ruled out.

A spokesman for the Audit Commission said an inspector had been assured by council officers that the process was being overseen by an independent regulator and that the code of conduct was not being breached by the authority.