THOUSANDS of council house tenants have added their voices to a long-running debate on the future of their homes.
Following 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 were forced to defer a vote on the issue 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 shared their views on the two options being considered - an increase from four per cent to 43.5pc.
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 what.
"There was a split of 70pc to 30pc in favour of one option.
"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is happy that the council will now make the right decision.
"When there was a low response first time round the council postponed the decision to give more tenants a say. We are really pleased that has happened."
The council's handling of the issue was subject to a series of complaints to the Audit Commission, which regulates council behaviour, 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 that an inspector spoke with officers and was assured that the process was being overseen by an independent regulator and that the Code of Conduct was not being breached.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article