The fact that Bradford Metropolitan District Council is having to look at radical ideas to raise the money to prop up and repair its bricks and mortar assets raises a number of obvious issues.

The whole basis of having to consider such ideas must be built on a foundation of consistent bad management of assets over the years. To allow buildings to fall into such a state of disrepair that the council has to hold out its begging bowl is beyond belief.

Of course it has not had enough money coming in, we all know that.

That said, it is also vital that a way forward is found to resolve these outstanding issues. The AMP (Asset Management Plan) may at the end of the day be the right road to follow.

But at the core of the current debate is not just the plan, but how it has been relayed - or has it? - to elected members both on the district council and town and parish councils.

The document, which may have been in existence for some time, has now floated to the surface in this area following a question raised at Keighley Town Council.

It reveals all manner of issues based basically on selling off or entering into private business partnerships and then leasing or renting the properties back - the repairs and maintenance being the responsibility of the new owners.

But as one Keighley town councillor asks, what happens when they fall behind or can't pay the rent? Ideas for safeguarding the financial future of leisure services have already been discussed, and the regeneration and culture scrutiny committee of Bradford Council has agreed that officers should look at the option of raising the £6.2 million to put the buildings right.

But the AMP plan goes much further than that, talking about town halls, council property used by businesses, museums - it is not clear why, but there is a photograph of Cliffe Castle in the plan. So just what is going on?

Whichever way you look at this, the contents of the AMP are raising concerns to the extent of special meetings being called.

Change is inevitable - but the electorate demands the right to be kept informed and consulted. The architects behind the AMP have forgotten the golden rule of communication, communication, communication.

Instead of presenting the scheme outlining the pros and cons in a professional, democratic manner, it has led to unnecessary time and expense on extra meetings and self-inflicted animosity and doing little to cement relationships between the district and local councils.

Explanations please.