Competing councils offered their blueprint for the region's future yesterday and, as Catherine Jewett and Mark Summers report, they are very different.

MORE unitary authorities or one all-purpose super council. About the only thing local councils could agree on was the need for bigger, and better, local authorities.

One thing is for certain: the arguments will be long and difficult.

If the North-East votes for a regional assembly next year, one tier of local government - either the county or district councils - will be scrapped.

Across the region, local authorities are literally fighting for their lives.

District councils favour unitary authorities based on their model, not a larger county-wide council.

They launched their case at Auckland Castle, in Bishop Auckland, County Durham.

Authorities in County Durham, Northumberland, North Yorkshire and Cumbria are supporting a Local Option ahead of referenda on regional assemblies to be held in autumn next year.

The Local Option says that single unitary authorities, based largely on existing county councils, are not the answer but that, instead, more local unitary councils should be created.

They argue that vast areas encompassing expansive rural wards and urban settlements are too large to be covered by one authority, as each community has different needs.

Instead, they propose between two and four new councils be created in each county, smaller than existing county councils but larger than districts.

Richard Robson, chief executive of Tynedale District Council, said: "The best option is to redraw the local government map to provide a Local Option of two or three new unitary councils for our county."

However, Durham County Council claims its plan will save council tax-payers a small fortune by slashing red tape and bureaucracy.

The scrapping of Durham's seven district councils would save £122m a year, equivalent to £144 on the bill for a Band D property, says the authority.

It hopes that if a regional assembly is introduced, it will form a county-wide unitary authority, taking over services currently provided at district level.

The move would mean fewer councillors and senior officers and savings being made through, for example, only needing one council tax department instead of seven.

Labour leader Ken Manton said savings could be re-invested in services.

The county already provides major services such as education and social services, accounting for 86 per cent of local government spending.

It believes the county needs a "big voice" to attract jobs and investment that three smaller authorities could not provide.

Chief executive Kingsley Smith said: "We are a rural county wedged between the major conurbations of Tyneside and Teesside, and are always in the position of having to compete for jobs, investment and resources for improving our environment.

"It would be a disaster for the people of County Durham if they lost that strategic ability."

The council says it would set up area boards that would be able to spend money locally and that there would be a greater role for town and parish councils in delivering services.

It also rejects the idea that it would be remote from service users, saying it already has a presence through good communication links, and that the identity of County Durham would be broken up by three unitaries.

A final decision is likely to be made next May, with a referendum in the October.