Hamish Firth: Mt Hobson Group Director on the Government's RMA reforms

An urban planner says the Government’s RMA reforms are well overdue.  

It's unveiled plans to replace current Resource Management Act laws with two new pieces of legislation, one for the environment and one for planning.  

It sets clear limits on council regulations and is expected to save $13 billion in consenting costs. 

Mt Hobson Group Director Hamish Firth told Kerre Woodham we’ve been bungling along with a system that results in us all having horror stories.  

He says there’s continuous subjectivity in the Resource Management Act, and the Government’s doing the right thing in replacing it. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be The government's confirmed it's replacing current resource management
outlaws with two new pieces of legislation, one for the environment,
one for planning. It's expected to save around thirteen billion
dollars in consenting costs. RMA reform Minister Chris Bishop says
planners won't be able to block projects because of visual

(00:31):
changes as long as other people aren't affected. Bishop says
that includes the direction doors face and where televisions were
placed in living rooms. Mount Hobson Group is a specialist
urban planning and resource management consultancy. We've spoken to director
Hamish Firth before and he joins me, now, good morning.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
Morning, Carrie.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Common sense from the minister.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
I think well over due. I think we've been bungling
along with a system that we've all got these horror stories.
I've been listening into the show. I could add more.
I've got one exactly for you now. So eighty units
out in Flatbush, we're almost there with a consent. We
can almost touch it. The urban designer comes back and says,

(01:16):
the front doors you've made them glass, No, I want
them solid wood. The architect says, well, we'd like them
because they're upstairs units, because it provides light for that
stairwell and where in the end we're going to probably
give in just to get our piece of paper. So
there's this continuous subjectivity. And I think the government's done
the right thing.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
What business is it of theirs? At what point did
they start sticking their noses in it?

Speaker 3 (01:42):
What is It's almost progressive And the moment we yield
for them, that is them saying that they are right
and we're wrong. Because what we're dealing with is time
and money. You talked about the swimming pool example. You
don't know what to do, you don't know how long
it's going to take, you don't know how much it's
going to cost, so you yield. And this is the
problem we've had. There's been too much subjective interpretation.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
I don't know how it started, how it began. It
used to be relatively straightforward. You needed something done, The
council wanted to make sure it was done properly. They
sent somebody along. They said, yep, it is tick done,
and you just paid for their time. And then it's
turned into interpretive dances.

Speaker 3 (02:20):
I say yeah and it's probably been layer upon layer
upon layer, and I think each government progressively has tried
to you know, almost at that sort of Wellington level,
they just scratching their heads, going, we can't understand what's wrong.
I think what's happened here is you've had Chris Bishop
come along. And I don't mean to sound like a fanboy,

(02:42):
and I don't want to be salacious, but I wonder
if he's the secret love child of another form of
mister fix It and another one of our ministers. But
let's leave that alone. He's come along and I think
he's worked it out that the at the coal face,
every single interaction people are having is difficult. Every single

(03:05):
interaction people have as subjective and different. One planner will
say one thing, another planner will say another.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
That's right, it does. I mean it's promising and that
you don't want Stephen Joyce's love child? Is that who
you were thinking of?

Speaker 3 (03:18):
Stephen Joyce's love child. I didn't want to say it,
but you've I wanted you to join the dots. I
just wonder dots joined. It's scandalous if we could find
out from mister Joyce.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
Look, I'm sure he's very heapily married and a respectable man,
and it would just be a love child in terms
of the way they think. But it also sounds as
though Labor's been doing the same sort of thinking because
they have said that it's very similar and commentators have
said it's very similar to what they were proposing. So hopefully,
you know, this is enduring these changes, not not going

(03:50):
to be scrapped the moment the government changes.

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah, there's a lot of similar themes. And I think
what we need is a country and this is part
of you know, our output, is that we need them
to stop tinkering with the rules each time a new
party comes along. We need to have that sort of
thirty year plan for infrastructure, that thirty year plan for zoning,
so that people can just get on with their lives.
And this is the devil will be in the detail.

(04:17):
But I think this is the perfect step in the
right direction. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
I just find it staggering that you can't deal with
one person when you are asking them for permission to
do something on your property. It makes no sense that
it gets put through five or six different people who
all have their own views. I find it staggering that
they can have that much input into a multi million

(04:42):
dollar development that has had trained professionals giving the best
possible plan for the people who are going to be
living in these homes, and then council says, no, it's
going to be solid wood. Why why?

Speaker 3 (04:57):
So two things, resource consents or planning permits are an
economic open sesame. So the more we make it different
called for people to do things, the longer we put
them through the mill, the more it costs. And that's
that GDP saving they're talking about. So these new rules,
you know, I think people are saying this will happen,

(05:19):
it will be destruction of the environment. I often wonder
if we suffer more in imagination than we do in reality.
This isn't to me. It's not going to make open
slava on the environment. It's going to make things that
we should be able to do now easier to do. So,
if this is an industrial area where industrial buildings are expected,

(05:40):
they'll be less mucking around with consents. So we expected
industrial buildings to go here are going to happen at
a quicker pace. There'll be less of the inputs, less
of the drag that it creates. The other thing is
whether you're building a garage or a small swimming pool
for yourself personally, or it's a much larger project. The
effects of you are the same. So small projects, medium

(06:03):
sized projects, large projects. It's the effect on the individual,
it affects everybody the same. And then the last thing
is I don't think anyone appreciates how hard it is
to be involved in the rama process unless you've done
it yourself. So everyone else looks at you incredulously when
you tell them the stories, in almost disbelief. But until
you've lived it, you don't get to understand it. And

(06:25):
I think that that's finally come through. It's got to
the powers that being Wellington, it's got through. And these
changes mean that there'll be you know, there'll be less
district plans, they'll be less interpretive, there'll be less subjectivity,
there'll be more certainty, and I think that's got to
be positive.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
Where's the council going to get the money from that
they're inevitably going to lose? Or do you not care?

Speaker 3 (06:49):
Now it's not about not caring. I think there were
two parts that if more think about this for a moment,
if suddenly we get a thousand unit subdivision quicker, the
council is going to get a thousand lots of those
rates rather than the one rate they got before. Ah.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
So the second thing is maybe they'll have smaller departments
of people, so maybe they'll be able to and then
maybe they don't need to lease as much off as space,
so maybe they could shrink the size of the council.
And I think this is part of the sort of
government's agenda, as we need less government in our lives,
less less of your control in our lives, and so

(07:24):
I suspect that. You know, they say it's cost recovery,
but if you have less off of space and less
bums on seats, then you have less overhead and then
you can charge less. Look that would be ideal. Time
will tell, but I hope that's where it lands.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
Where it lands, Amen to that. Hamishbirth, director of the
Mount Hobson Group, Thank you so much for your time. Again.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news Talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.