The role of elected representatives.

One interesting aspect of the New Frampton Court disaster is the role of local representatives at District Council level. In general elected representatives are expected to represent the views of those who elected them. Of course they cannot always do this because sometimes they have to take into account the greater good (carcass rendering plants have to go somewhere, for example) and electorates are not neccesarily uniform entities - electors may disagree within a ward. It must be said that neither of these two exceptions apply here.

First there was absolutely no imperative to build New Frampton Court; it did not have to be built in Frampton, it did not have to be built anywhere. If the plot of land was suitable for housing then something vastly more acceptable could have been insisted upon. Secondly the people of Frampton spoke with one voice, and loudly, in opposition to the proposal and there is not the slightest reason to think that anyone else in West Dorset (whose councillors may have been on the planning committee) would have supported this building.
It appears then that the District Councillors on the planning committee who voted through the proposal were acting against the wishes of the electorate. The question now is why? One explanation for this sort of behaviour was put forward by a District Councillor of my acquaintance. He said that when someone is elected to office they suddenly consider themselves to be an expert in all sorts of specialised areas they know next to nothing about - the safety value of one road layout over another, for example. Often, though not often enough, the technical people in the Council point out the shortcomings of these views, but when it comes to aesthetic expertise there are no such restraints. It is my opinion that where aesthetics are concerned local opinion must be paramount. Here it was ignored.

So, why were the the people of Frampton ignored over this issue? Because the District Councillors thought they knew better.