THE name County Durham could disappear under proposals for the future of local government in the North-East.

The Boundary Committee yesterday released recommended options for a system of unitary authorities for the county.

The current two-tier system of local government will be scrapped if the North-East votes to have an elected regional assembly.

In its wide-ranging review, the committee considered 237 submissions about how the county should look, and has put forward three options.

Option one, preferred by Durham County Council, is for a single county-wide unitary authority, based on the current county boundary.

The committee said this would have sufficient capacity to provide the full range of local government services, and would reflect residents' attachments to County Durham.

Durham County Council leader Ken Manton said he was pleased the Boundary Committee had included it in the options.

He said: "We believe the single unitary option to be the best for local people because it can deliver better quality services and will cost less to set up and run, leaving annual savings of £21m to be reinvested in services.

"A structure of area boards with budgets will keep local communities involved in the decision-making process.

"If you add in the reduced risk of disruption to services, the ability to have clout in big regional issues, a vibrant and energetic role for town and parish council partners, and the retention of County Durham as a name, we feel the single unitary option strikes the right balance to serve well the needs of every individual."

The other options involve scrapping County Durham. Option two, put forward by the committee, is for two authorities.

There would be a North and East Durham authority, based on existing Chester-le-Street, Derwentside, Durham City and Easington districts, and South Durham, based on Sedgefield, Teesdale and Wear Valley districts.

Option three, favoured by five of the seven existing districts, is to have three unitary authorities.

East Durham would be made up of the present Durham City and Easington districts, North Durham would include Chester-le-Street and Derwentside, and South Durham would be a merger of Sedgefield, Teesdale and Wear Valley.

John Docherty, head of management support at Wear Valley District Council, said: "We are against a single unitary authority because we think it would be too big a population and too geographically widespread to become local government - it would become regional government."

He said the five districts had similar objections to a two unitary model. He said: "The other argument is they could almost be so big as to be significant competitors to a regional assembly itself.

"That is why we want the option with three unitary authorities. We feel the population balance is big enough to allow them to deliver services effectively, but small enough to allow local government to remain local."

There will now be a consultation period for both County Durham and North Yorkshire, and the deadline for responses is February 23.

After this, the proposals will be refined and the recommendations sent to the Government.

Durham City Council leader Sue Pitts said she was disappointed that the Greater Durham option did not appear among the recommendations.

The new ruling Liberal-Democrat regime drew up the option, which would have extended the city council's boundaries, taking in part of neighbouring Chester-le-Street and Sedgefield.

Chester-le-Street District Council also said it was disappointed after its plan to link it with Durham City Council was dismissed.