A little more conversation, a little less action.

Ten years ago resident groups from all over Victoria were battling the Kennett-Maclellan planning regime. Services to country towns were being cut, regional development was ignored and there was no strategy for Melbourne other than growth. Major projects were facilitated by a combination of special Acts of Parliament, ad hoc interventions and no planning at all (think the Casino, the Grand Prix and the disappointment that is Docklands).

The cumulative effect of resident resistance proved to be Kennett's downfall, but perhaps the single most powerful and widespread protest was against the unfortunate Good Design Guide. This residential building code produced a proliferation of three-storey buildings of bad design and gave no control over the design of buildings above that height. The Bracks government promised to amend this situation, and it did. The replacement ResCode puts such emphasis on 'neighbourhood character' that most new medium-density housing is at worst innocuous. Heritage overlays now protect large parts of the city, and design guidelines for buildings over three storeys are in place.

The government also began the complex process of creating a metropolitan planning strategy. Melbourne 2030 introduces the idea of an urban growth boundary and proposes an increase in residential densities--principles that now guide all council planning decisions. Yet protests persist. The problem is no longer bad design and ad hoc decision making; according to the current crop of resident groups, the problem is the metropolitan plan itself.

What's going on here? Melbourne 2030 certainly has its flaws, arising mainly from poor management and lack of commitment, but there's something not quite right about a group of Elwood residents being 'shattered' by the approval of a four-storey block of flats. (Elwood's character is defined by blocks of flats.) Or Northcote residents hotly opposing five-storey development on High Street (which has a number of heritage-protected buildings around that height). Or Camberwell residents going ballistic over a commercial development next to a train station on a major road. Even the conservative Save Our Suburbs group (which led the charge against the Good Design Guide) supports the concentration of development in retail centres so as to ease the pressure on residential streets.

In other cases, Melbourne 2030 is blamed when it's not the real issue. When residents of Balaclava mobilise against a proposal for a rooming house, and groups in North Fitzroy organise against public housing near their park, this is not about development. This is about the 'wrong kind of person' moving in.

Melbourne 2030 has been held responsible for loss of social diversity, too. One of the Collingwood Action Group's arguments against the recently approved Banco development in Smith Street was that it would contribute to the gentrification of the area. But when the group achieved a reduction in the height of the proposal, it was at the expense of the component of low-cost, car-free student accommodation. The approved design now provides uniformly up-market housing.

Not all these protests are the same, clearly. In some cases there is real concern at the lack of state funding of public services to sustain the increase in Melbourne's population. In others it's the lack of support to local councils to upgrade their own infrastructure. In yet others it's the principle of the loss of local democracy (although this depends on the side the council is on). Sometimes it's just about good old-fashioned self-interest. But the 'planning backlash' rally on 3 May boils them all down to opposition to any increase in residential densities at all.

Why is an increase in density such a problem? There are good arguments for it: more small dwellings for the growing number of small households; better use of public space; more even use throughout the day of public transport; more opportunities for cultural interaction; minimisation of individual ecological footprints; reduction of urban sprawl. What are the arguments against?

The main one seems to be traffic congestion. But as Melbourne is already congested, a more sensible response would be to campaign for improved public transport to alleviate existing and future problems. A close second is air pollution; the same counter-argument applies.

A third argument against is the impact on water supply. But urban consolidation itself does not increase demand for water: this argument is only relevant if we're talking about total Australian population increase. Melbourne 2030 simply attempts to accommodate what is largely the result of Federal policies.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument is that medium and high density development delivers windfall profits to developers. Indeed, why should permission to develop land make selected people very rich? The concept of giving something back is well understood in most advanced economies. It is expressed in a multitude of ways throughout the world, including betterment taxes, inclusionary zoning, developer contributions, percentages of development given to social housing, ecologically sustainable design, community facilities and so on.

Where is the discussion in Melbourne about net community benefit? The problem here is that resident objections and ambit claims from developers have become a vicious circle, precluding meaningful debate. We end up in VCAT, where the future of the city is decided by lawyers.

Where is the discussion about what we as a society want from metropolitan planning other than 'no change'? Where are the resident group protests at the lack of adequate funding for public transport and affordable housing? What about questions of social equity? What is the government doing to encourage developers to be socially responsible and residents to be receptive to change?

Unfortunately, the government response to the current deadlock is to consider winding back public participation in planning. If priority development and development assessment panels come to replace local councillor and resident input into planning decisions, as is being mooted, the resident groups co-ordinating the 'backlash' will have themselves partly to blame. And our whole city and community will be impoverished for it.

Kate Shaw is a Research Fellow in Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne