A good example is the pressure the Meander Valley Council is facing over the government's Northern Regional Prison.

The protest group Westbury Region Against the Prison has been critical of the council, claiming it has a responsibility to consult with the community on the proposed development.

For its part, the council says the prison is a state government project; and its role is only to act as the planning authority.

That is, when, or if, the government gets its act into gear - remembering it has a fairly poor record at delivering infrastructure - and lodges a development application, it will be up to Meander Valley councillors to act as the supposed independent umpire.

WRAP members - and others - will expect the council to refuse the development, irrespective of planning advice, because they don't want a prison anywhere near them.

A similar battle is shaping up in Circular Head with wind farm proposals that have attracted opposition.

There the council seems conscious of not wanting to be seen to be backing one side or the other due to its status as the responsible planning authority.

But can a council generally, and individual councillors particularly, really get away with not taking a position when many in the community want to feel heard and supported by their local representatives?

In Hobart recently, the city council refused an application for the Mt Wellington cable car proposal. That was hardly a surprise for two reasons: One, an independent planning report gave plenty of reasons to knock it back, and, two, many of the aldermen were elected having made clear their opposition.

On the latter, some will try to claim they can put aside their personal, publicly expressed views and consider a planning application on its merits, but is that believable?

There is a clear conflict here between the role of councils - and councillors - in representing their communities and their responsibility to rule on planning matters.