ALL over Wharfedale and Aireborough people are discovering that the piece of land they've come to regard as open space could be built on.

Large sections of former green belt look likely to be taken up by housing - as outlined in the area's planning blueprint.

What furious residents are having trouble grasping is that the amendments are the result of the planning inquiry which took place more than five years ago - and even those who attended the meetings now have trouble remembering the details.

Now, residents are faced with pages of jargon and unless they've the original document they've no chance of finding out what's what.

And turning to their local councillors is often little help - their hands are tied because the scope for objection is very narrow indeed.

Councillors have a difficult job - on one hand they've got to handle some very, very frustrated residents but on the other, the law says the chance for objection is now almost over.

There is scope that - providing there are enough objections - yet another public inquiry into the Leeds Unitary Development Plan will be held.

But that is highly unlikely. People can now only object to the latest amendments -the time to object to the original plan was years ago.

Whether or not this is the best example of democracy in action is open to debate, and what is particularly galling to many people, as seen in letters on this page, is the apparent politicisation of the issue.

Councillors are elected to represent the views of their constituents and party political loyalties should have no part in their actions in such a matter.

It is to be hoped that at election time, people will remember the role their councillors played in supporting their communities - and not just on the planning issue.

The closure of Otley Tourist Information Centre, for example, is another case where the wishes of a community have been ridden roughshod over and voters are entitled to ask "what have our councillors, at town and city council level, done to fight this?"

If the answers they receive are unsatisfactory then they should vote accordingly. That would be the best example of democracy in action.