I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Ōrākei Local Board will be held on:




Meeting Room:



Thursday, 21 March 2024


St Chads Church and Community Centre
38 St Johns Road


Ōrākei Local Board










Scott Milne, JP


Deputy Chairperson

Sarah Powrie



Troy Churton



Angus McPhee



Penny Tucker



Margaret Voyce



David Wong, JP



(Quorum 4 members)




Monique Rousseau

Democracy Advisor


20 March 2024


Contact Telephone: 027 203 2107

Email: monique.rousseau@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz




Ōrākei Local Board

21 March 2024





19        Community Service provision assessment in Mission Bay - Kohimarama and implications for Tagalad Reserve South                                  5



Ōrākei Local Board

21 March 2024



Community Service provision assessment in Mission Bay - Kohimarama and implications for Tagalad Reserve South

File No.: CP2024/02796




Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the findings from a community service needs assessment undertaken in Mission Bay and Kohimarama.

2.       To outline the financial requirements and process to return Tagalad Reserve to a local community lease.

3.       To seek a decision from the local board on potential advocacy to the Governing Body to remove Tagalad Reserve from the asset recycling programme.      

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4.       Tagalad Reserve, at 9 Tagalad Road, Mission Bay (Tagalad Reserve) is the site of the former Mission Bay Bowling Club. The bowling club surrendered their ground lease with Auckland Council in June 2016 and the buildings on site were transferred to council ownership. It has been vacant since 2016.

5.       The property was transferred to Eke Panuku Development Auckland for disposal as a non-service property.[1] Local board input was not sought prior to this operational decision being made. The site was included in Schedule B of the Emergency budget’s sites for investigation for asset recycling.

6.       The Ōrākei Local Board have resolved their ongoing opposition to the disposal of Tagalad Reserve since 2016 and continue to advocate for its return to local community service use.

7.       Through the Governance Framework Review, the Governing Body approved the implementation of increased local board decision making over local community services. Local boards are now responsible for a number of new local community facilities in their area and their location, design, build and fit out.

8.       To transfer a non-service property to service requires the identification of a service need, options for service delivery, an assessment of investment requirements and potential funding sources (both initial capital and ongoing operational funding).

9.       An independent investigation into the community needs of Mission Bay and Kohimarama was completed in November 2023. It found that there is:

·    no specific gap in the provision of facilities according to the current policy guidelines of the Community Facilities Network Plan, noting the plan does not include guidelines for community leases.

·    a desire from the community for additional community facilities and retention of green space in the area due to perceived and anticipated population growth and intensification.

·    a range of potential community aspirations for the area identified through interviews, including some that could be met at the Tagalad site, but also others that cannot.

·    some benefits of the Tagalad site including location and topography but also significant constraints including size, lack of street frontage, environmental factors such as flood risk, and the current zoning.

10.     Healthy Waters have advised they do not support redevelopment of Tagalad Reserve due to its location in a flood plain. Flood modelling of the Hobson Bay area is underway, and Tagalad Reserve has been identified as a site for a potential stormwater management function in the catchment. No financial contribution to remove Tagalad Reserve from the asset recycling list is sought until the modelling is completed. Staff recommend the site is retained in council ownership.

11.     A 2021 building condition assessment showed that the buildings on Tagalad Reserve were in a moderate condition with no serious issues. Renewal modelling financial estimates forecast renewal requirements of $386,000 for 2024 and $223,000 for 2027. The 30-year total forecast renewal cost for the buildings on Tagalad Reserve is estimated at just over $2 million. 

12.     Further investigation work, for site contamination and any mitigation requirements, or for more detailed building works assessments, may also be required.

13.     Three annual service model cost estimates have been prepared for operating a community facility at Tagalad Reserve. They are:

·    $77,500 for a community-led managed facility

·    $59,500 for maintaining the status quo, where the site is retained but remains unoccupied

·    $56,800 for a community lease.

14.     To return Tagalad Reserve to service will require a local board resolution to take on the site as a local service property within their existing budget parameters. The resolution will be subject to a Governing Body decision to reverse the non-service status of the site, remove the property from Schedule B and confirm it is no longer being considered for disposal. 

15.     Staff recommend a workshop with relevant Customer and Community Services staff to confirm an operating model and subsequent expression of interest process.

Ngā tūtohunga


That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a)      tuhi / note the key findings on community service need from the community needs assessment report undertaken by an independent consultant.

b)      tuhi / note that Tagalad Reserve will require further investigation regarding any site contamination risks and mitigation required.

c)       tuhi / note that Tagalad Reserve may be required for a future stormwater management purpose and that plans for the site beyond the next three years should not be made until the stormwater catchment assessment work has been completed.

d)      tuhi/ note that whilst the stormwater assessment is underway, no financial contribution to remove Tagalad Reserve from the asset recycling list will be sought.

e)      tuhi / note that any financial implications of Tagalad Reserve becoming a local service property, including further investigations, capital renewal investment and ongoing operational requirements, will need to be funded through existing Ōrākei Local Board budgets.

f)       tuhi / note that a workshop with staff would be required to determine criteria for an expression of interest process to secure a community lessee.

g)      tuhi / note that the local board resolving to take on Tagalad Reserve as a community lease will also be subject to a Governing Body decision for the non-service status of the site to be reversed and confirmation that it is no longer being considered for disposal.

h)      tuhi / note, to include this report and its attachments in an advocacy request to Governing Body for Tagalad Reserve to transfer from non-service to a local community lease.




16.     Tagalad Reserve South (Tagalad Reserve / Tagalad) is a flat, 4929m2 site located at 9 Tagalad Road / 6A Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay. The property consists of two land parcels as shown in Image 1. The larger land parcel was acquired (along with the reserve site to the north that is home to the Mission Bay Tennis Club) in 1933. The smaller land parcel was acquired in 1988.[2]

17.     The site is held under the Reserves Act and is zoned Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part). The site is within a flood plain and a flood prone area.

Image 1 – Subject site – Tagalad reserve (south)

18.     Existing facilities at the site include:

·    ex-bowling club clubrooms (comprising a hall, office, lounge and bar, kitchen, and toilets - 420m2)

·    a garage (plant and soil shed - 40m2)

·    changing rooms and toilets (140m2)

·    storage sheds

·    a water tank and

·    bowling greens.

19.     The Mission Bay Bowling Club had a lease with Auckland Council for the use of the site until 16 September 2018. At the request of the club the ground lease was terminated in June 2016, and ownership of the buildings was transferred to council.

20.     In August 2016 Council’s Community Facilities department approved the transfer of the property to Eke Panuku for disposal as a non-service property.[3]  Local board input was not sought prior to this operational decision being made. The site has been vacant since 2016 and Eke Panuku continue to manage property maintenance.

21.     Te Poari ā-Rohe o Ōrākei / Ōrākei Local Board have made numerous resolutions since 2016 in opposition to the transfer of the site to non-service use and the proposal for its sale. They have requested that staff look at the suitability of Tagalad Reserve for other community uses. A table of the resolutions is in Attachment A.

22.     In 2018 and 2019, Council’s Parks Sports and Recreation department provided advice to the local board that the Ōrākei area was generally well served by open space. Tagalad Reserve was not considered suitable for sporting uses or required to achieve the quality of open space outcomes for the community.[4]

23.     In May/June 2020 Tagalad Reserve was included in Schedule B of the Emergency Budget public consultation material that listed council property identified for asset recycling.[5] The rationalisation process for Tagalad was not completed and the site has not been progressed for disposal.[6]

24.     In February 2021 the Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association (MBKRA) provided the local board with a proposal for Tagalad Reserve to be used as a local community centre and park.

25.     The proposal included the community centre being managed by a Community Charitable Trust. Operational funding would be secured by the trust through:

·    applications to community trust funding bodies,

·    advertising for local participants,

·    donations from local stakeholders and

·    offering the building as a venue for hire.

26.     Council responded to the MBKRA proposal in May 2021 that it was not supported as a council financed project because the area was well serviced in open space and community centres. In May 2022 a community day, organised by MBKRA, was held at Tagalad.

27.     On 18 August 2022 the Ōrākei Local Board requested that council staff investigate and advise on how Tagalad can be brought back under their governance, stating that the reserve and its facilities are needed for local community use.[7]

28.     The 2023 Local Board Plan specifically advocates for the ‘return (of) Tagalad Reserve to our governance, enabling us to develop it for the use of the Mission Bay and wider community’.

29.     In March 2023, in response to requests from the local board, a community service needs assessment was initiated. The assessment considered the potential of Tagalad Reserve to address any identified service provision gaps. The report was completed in November 2023 (Attachment B).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

30.     To transfer a property to service use requires:

·    identification of a service need

·    consideration of options for service delivery

·    an assessment of investment requirements and potential funding sources for the initial capital requirements and ongoing operational funding.

31.     This report addresses community service need specifically. It provides high-level guidance on service delivery options and the financial implications for the local board of the decision to take Tagalad Reserve on as a service property in the local portfolio. This will help inform decision making on the future of the site.

32.     Recommendations on a preferred operating model, key tenants or service providers, and specific details on remedial building or site work, are not included in this analysis.

Findings from the service need investigation

33.     The investigation into community service requirements in Mission Bay – Kohimarama was carried out by an independent consultant between May 2023 and October 2023. 

34.     The investigation involved:

·    reviewing existing information, including reports completed by the Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association (MBKRA) in 2022 and Auckland Council strategic plans and policies[8]

·    contacting organisations and individuals who had interest and knowledge of community services and the area. The contacts were identified by council’s Connected Communities and local board staff.

·    carrying out 19 interviews with individuals and organisations which focussed on understanding community service and space requirements.

35.     The study area for the investigation is shown in Image 2. The existing community facilities from the Community Facilities Network Plan (CFNP) are marked.[9]

Image 2 – Study area and existing community facilities A map of a city

Description automatically generated

36.     There are at least 19 areas of ‘public open space’ in the study area including sizeable parks, play areas, sports parks, and areas of forest and ecological values. These are shown in Image 3.

Image 3 – Study area and open spaceA map of a neighborhood

Description automatically generated

37.     There are currently seven community leases on public open space in the study area. Although there are no network provision guidelines specifically for community leases, wider principles for leases indicate that they should support local board plans and the strategic vision of the Auckland Plan.   

Study area demographics and residential development 

38.     The population of the study area, from 2018 census data, was 15,504. Population projections indicate that by 2051 the population of the study area will increase by 20 per cent[10] compared to 47 per cent projection for the wider Auckland region.

39.     The study area is also projected to have an increasingly aging population by 2048, with the population over-65 years of age projected to increase by 44 per cent. By comparison, the population of over-65s for the Auckland region is projected to more than double by 2048.

40.     The Auckland Unitary Plan zoning in the area is mainly Mixed Housing Urban, which provides medium density development. New dwelling resource consent data shows that new dwelling consents in Ōrākei are at a relatively low number comparative to other local board areas.[11]

Findings from the needs assessment interviews

41.     Key findings from the interviews include a general desire for additional community facilities and retention of green space in the area. This is due to perceived and anticipated population growth and intensification.

42.     The interviews show a perception that current spaces are not always useable and accessible to locals, particularly when they are busy with visitors during the summer months. A perceived lack of ‘local places for local people’ was identified.

43.     A wide range of generally desirable community use site attributes were identified, including:

·    a place suitable for seniors to meet and connect

·    indoor and outdoor space adjacent to each other and able to be used simultaneously

·    places for people who work from home to connect with others

·    space for meetings catering to different user numbers (50+ and 100-200 users, particularly at peak times)

·    hall space with smaller adjacent rooms and a kitchen

·    storage space for community groups with significant amounts of equipment

44.     Other attributes that were mentioned as being important and relevant to a community space included:

·    flexible space configuration

·    ability to self-cater events – kitchen and servery

·    a decent sound system and WiFi, including provision to stream live events and for hybrid meetings

·    availability of parking and being close to public transport (especially for youth events)

·    accessible for those with mobility needs including flat areas, ramps, accessible toilets and wash facilities, co-located indoor and outdoor spaces.

45.     Tagalad Reserve has the potential to fulfil some of these requirements, in particular the indoor-outdoor space, kitchen requirements and venue capacity.

46.     Several community groups have identified that they are looking for suitable space in the area and have expressed an interest in Tagalad Reserve. These include two seniors’ outreach and service organisations and a fly-fishing club. There may be other groups, not yet identified, who may also be interested in using the site.

Community service provision and strategic context for Tagalad Reserve

47.     There are existing community centres at Ōrākei (council led) and St Heliers (community led). A new community centre is proposed for Meadowbank as part of a wider development. In the meanwhile, the current Meadowbank community centre is operating as a venue for hire only. These centres are located just outside of the defined study area. 

48.     Under the guidelines[12] of the CFNP there is no significant ‘gap’ in the network of community facilities in the study area.[13] Many of the interviewees expressed an anecdotal view that there is pressure on available space in the existing facilities at peak times.

49.     Staff provided information to the local board in 2018[14] 2019 and 2021[15] that there were no significant gaps in the open space network under the relevant open space policy guidelines[16].

50.     A 2019 analysis of the play network identified that some upgrades were required to existing play space in the study area, particularly for older children and teenagers.[17]

51.     Although there are no gaps in the policy provision networks, the general perception of interviewees is that Tagalad Reserve could fulfil a community service need in the study area that is not currently provided for.

52.     There are no guidelines or policies that take a network provision view of community leases.[18] Council has a leasing portfolio across the Auckland region of approximately 1,400 leases and licenses. Community leases comprise 88 per cent of these. Sixty-five per cent of the community leases are ground leases only, with any onsite buildings or improvements being tenant owned.  

Other site-specific issues relevant to the future use of Tagalad Reserve

53.     The following issues did not form part of the community needs assessment but are relevant matters for the potential future uses of Tagalad Reserve.

Flood risk and site contamination risk for Tagalad Reserve

54.     Tagalad Reserve is located within a flood plain and is in a flood prone area. This is shown in Image 4. 

Image 4 – Tagalad Reserve – Flood plain (blue) and flood prone area (hatched)

55.     Healthy Waters do not support further development on Tagalad Reserve due to the flood plain and downstream flooding. Due to the environmental constraints, they recommend that Tagalad Reserve be retained in the council property portfolio as open space.

56.     Healthy Waters are conducting flood modelling of the Hobson Bay area and are working through options for flood mitigation in the catchment. As a result of this modelling, Tagalad Reserve may be required for a future stormwater function, such as a dry detention pond. Feedback from Healthy Waters is that it is possible to reshape a site for multiple recreational and community uses as well as have it serve a stormwater function.

57.     Due to its historic use as a bowling green, a site contamination report may be required for Tagalad Reserve. A report will confirm any mitigation that is necessary if soil disturbance or a change of use for the bowling greens is proposed. Research undertaken by MBKRA in 2022 indicated that the cost to test the grounds for chemical residue at that time was $4,500. Both bowling greens will require testing, as well as the area around the sheds. The results of testing will determine any further investigation or mitigation required.[19]

58.     A site contamination investigation will be required if the decision is made for Tagalad Reserve to become a service property. This cost will need to be funded through the existing local board budget.

Building assessment and renewals financial forecasts

59.     An asset assessment report was prepared by Parks and Community Facilities in 2021 to understand the cost to upgrade the buildings on site to an appropriate community lease standard. The assessment found that a series of maintenance and renewal work was required, based on a six-month, two year and five-year time frame. 

60.     Key findings of the 2021 assessment were that the buildings were generally in a moderate condition with no significant work required to improve their overall condition. Immediate basic maintenance requirements included:

·    work on the systems (fire, air conditioning, security), and

·    general cleaning and repair of guttering, roof cladding, fences, vegetation and the grounds.

61.     A list of other work recommended for the two year and five-year timeframes included:

·    remediation, repair or replacement of damaged fittings, the walkways and heat pumps,

·    encapsulating or removing exposed asbestos

·    general repainting and recladding, and

·    removing existing unrequired infrastructure such as bowling greens and storage sheds.

62.     Due to the non-service status of the site and buildings, not all of this work has been undertaken. 

63.     Updated modelling for the required renewals for Tagalad Reserve has been provided by Parks and Community Facilities staff to inform this report. (Refer to the financial section of this report).

64.     Immediate renewal work is recommended on the buildings’ roofs in 2024 and the stairs in 2027, estimated at $386,000 and $223,000 respectively. All renewal estimates will require further investigation to confirm the extent of actual work required and actual costs. An updated asset assessment is currently being finalised. No substantial changes have been identified.     

65.     Although additional capital investment may be needed to make the buildings fit for purpose, this will also depend on the final community lease proposed for the site.

66.     Any future site upgrades may also trigger further building investigation work or requirements such as seismic review and asbestos management. The scope of any requirements will depend on the final proposal for how the site will be used.  

Community service delivery options for Tagalad Reserve

67.     Staff advice in this report has focused on two main community service operating models:

·    a community-led community facility 

·    a community lease 

68.     A community-led community facility model is an agreement with a third-party organisation for them to manage the facility and any programmes and services offered from the site. This option has the highest ongoing operational costs for council, estimated at $77,500 annually. Council can provide funding and grants, and often also offer staffing and managerial support to the community organisation as they establish themselves and their services at the site.   

69.     A community lease operating model is where a lease agreement for the land and/or buildings on site is entered into between a community group and council, generally at a below-market cost. Leases are often exclusive to one organisation, which can limit collaboration and flexibility in use of the space[20]. Annual operating costs for the community lease option are $56,800.

70.     By comparison, no service offering from the site, but full ongoing maintenance of the facilities and grounds have an annual operating cost estimate of $59,500.

71.     A ground lease option, which includes gifting the site buildings to the lessee group for a nominal cost, would reduce the ongoing building maintenance and renewal costs for council.[21] This option would require further analysis as to its feasibility. Future liability for the buildings at the end of the lease period would also need to be confirmed.

72.     The strategic assessment indicates no gap in the provision of ‘community centre’ facilities in the area that would necessitate a council supported new centre at Tagalad Reserve.

73.     There are no policy provision network guidelines for community leases. A community lease arrangement with an appropriate organisation could provide for some of the community needs identified in the service assessment report.[22]

74.     Staff previously provided feedback to the local board that the proposal from the MBKRA for a community centre and park at Tagalad Reserve was not supported as a council financed initiative. The financial viability and community service value of the MBKRA proposal has not been further assessed as part of this report.

75.     If the decision for Tagalad Reserve to become a service property is made, staff recommend a workshop with relevant Customer and Community Services staff to confirm the operating model and subsequent expression of interest process for a community lease. The timing for when staff would undertake this work will be subject to resourcing and will require prioritisation with other departmental work programme items.

Initial and ongoing funding requirements for community service at Tagalad Reserve 

76.     Should the decision be made for Tagalad Reserve to become a service property, any financial requirements for the ongoing operation of the site as a service property will need to be funded through existing local board budgets. This includes the initial costs for any further building assessments or reports that may be needed to inform the decision-making process.

77.     High level financial estimates for the ongoing operational costs for a community service at Tagalad have been provided for three service options:

·    status quo (where the site is kept and the buildings maintained, but remain empty),

·    community-led and managed facility,

·    community lease (which also provides a community ground lease only estimate).

78.     The community-led facility option requires the most ongoing funding from the local board, while the least costly option is the ground lease only option. Further details on the financial implications for the local board of taking on Tagalad Reserve as a service asset are discussed in the financial implications section of this report.   

79.     Additional funding may become available to the local board as part of proposed service property optimisation. Tagalad Reserve has been identified by the local board as a top priority project for reinvestment should any opportunities be progressed.

Changes to local board community services funding budgets

80.     As part of the Governance Framework Review there have been changes to decision making responsibilities over most community services. Local boards are now responsible for determining the number of new local community facilities in their area and their specific location, design, build and fit out. This is done within budget parameters agreed by the Governing Body.

81.     Service delivery funding for local boards has previously been based on legacy council arrangements. Local boards with a lot of assets tend to have more funding than those with fewer assets. In 2021 the Governing Body agreed in principle to a new funding model for local community services.

82.     The Fairer Funding model, as outlined in the draft LTP 2024-2034, proposes to address local community services funding inequities by distributing available funding to boards based on population (80 per cent) deprivation (15 per cent) and land area (five per cent).  This distribution model was approved (GB/2021/138) by the Governing Body as the equitable funding model.

83.     This means that, when compared to the current asset-based funding model, some local boards will receive more funding for local community services, while others will receive less. Local boards will need to make informed decisions on where to prioritise investment in their service property portfolio to provide the best outcomes for their community. 

84.     The Ōrākei Local Board have consistently advocated for Tagalad Reserve to become a service property under their decision making. The local board can make this decision, but it will be subject to a Governing Body decision to move the property from non-service to service.

85.     Any local board decision regarding Tagalad Reserve and its future use will need to consider what would be required to prioritise capital and operational funding on an ongoing basis, irrespective of the local board funding arrangement.

Process for moving a property from non-service to service use

86.     The process for Tagalad Reserve to move from non-service to service use will require the following steps:

·    a resolution from the Ōrākei Local Board that they will take on the property as a community lease facility, acknowledging that there is no additional budget allocated with this decision. Long-term plans for the site should not be made until the completion of the Healthy Waters catchment assessment[23].

·    the local board will need to make a request to the Governing Body to reverse the non-service status of the site, to remove Tagalad reserve from the Schedule B list of assets for recycling, and to confirm that the property is no longer being considered for disposal.

87.     Staff recommend this report accompany any local board request to Governing Body for the retention of Tagalad reserve in council ownership and its return to service as a local asset.





Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

88.     Tagalad Reserve is within a flood plain and a flood prone area. Retaining the site as open space, with appropriate planting and management, and limiting development will minimise any additional flood impacts that may arise if the site were redeveloped for other uses.

89.     Any future work required at the site can ensure emissions are minimised through considerations such as water sensitive design, use of sustainable and ethical products, recycling, and waste minimisation, aligned with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

90.     Teams within the wider council organisation that have provided information in this report include staff from:

·    Regional Services and Strategy

·    Connected Communities

·    Parks and Community Facilities

·    Healthy Waters

·    Finance and Business Performance

·    Financial Strategy and Planning

·    Public Law

·    Local Board Services

·    Value for Money.

91.     Staff advice previously provided regarding assessment of community service and open space provision has not changed at the time of writing this report.

92.     If the site returned to service use, there would be implications to staff work programmes and budgets to identify a suitable community lessee.

93.     There will also be ongoing impacts on staff work programmes and budgets to bring and maintain Tagalad’s buildings and grounds at a community service standard.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

94.     The Ōrākei Local Board have a preference to increase provision of community services in the area through the use of Tagalad Reserve for community purposes. They have advocated for the site’s return to community service use since 2016.

95.     The use of Tagalad Reserve for community service uses offers the opportunity for positive local impact as it can assist local community organisations with accessing local community space. Groups that participated in interviews through the needs assessment indicated interest in the space, and there may be other user groups identified through an expression of interest process.

96.     Any costs associated with service provision at Tagalad Reserve will need to be funded through existing local board budgets. This will potentially require the reprioritisation of other renewals and initiatives which may lead to negative local impacts.

97.     As there is no identified gap in community service provision in the area, a community facility at the site is not supported as a council led initiative. Any community services provided at the site will need to be delivered through a community lease.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

98.     No Māori organisations have been referred to staff as community service providers currently looking for space in the study area.

99.     Ngāti Paoa as mana whenua were identified as part of the community service requirements discussion.[24] Due to capacity issue prioritisation, they did not participate in the needs assessment research.

100.   Further decision-making for the site, once its use has been confirmed, can involve mana whenua and Māori input. This will ensure their perspective and needs are considered in the next steps.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

101.   The financial implications for operating a community service at Tagalad Reserve, for each of the identified operating models in this report, are shown in Table 1[25].

102.   A three-year timeframe has been included to accommodate the catchment modelling work of Healthy Waters. Within three years any future need for Tagalad Reserve as part of the stormwater network should be confirmed.  

Table 1 – 30 year options forecast



3 years

10 years

20 years

30 years

Option A – Status Quo

(building is maintained but not used)
















Option B – Community Led facility
















Option C - Community lease
















Option D – Community lease – ground lease[26]

















103.   The 30-year modelled renewal cost estimates for the site buildings are shown in Table 2. The estimate of renewal requirements, identified at just over $2 million over a 30-year period, is regardless of the service operating model.[27]

Table 2- Renewals forecast

Building renewals

Year 1-3 Only

Year 1-10

Year 11-20

Year 21-30

Building - Total

Main Building






Storage Shed






Other buildings






Years -Total







104.   There may be other investigation report requirements and associated financial implications for the local board that have not yet been identified.

105.   There is no additional budget associated with the local board taking on Tagalad Reserve as a service property. Should the local board decide to do so, they will need to consider the other service properties in their portfolio and prioritise funding to meet requirements.

106.   As an asset-based approach to delivery of community services is not financially sustainable, council has been developing options for how to deliver community services differently. A key principle guiding the development of the draft Long-term Plan 2024-2034 is to make the most of existing assets while considering how to deliver the best value. This means investing in assets that deliver the best outcomes and considering how community services might be delivered in a way that is less reliant on assets.

107.   Under the Fairer Funding proposal, local boards will receive funding based on an equitable formula rather than asset renewal requirements. Local boards will need to make informed decisions on where to prioritise investment within their service portfolio to provide the best outcomes for their community.

108.   Tagalad Reserve and buildings was transferred to Eke Panuku Development Auckland for disposal as a non-service property. The property was included in Schedule B of the Emergency budget sites for investigation for asset recycling.

109.   Removing Tagalad from Schedule B to retain it as a local service property will impact on the Council’s ability to meet the asset recycling budget. However, given that it is completely within a flood plain and the site has a potential role within the Hobson Bay stormwater network, development of Tagalad Reserve is not recommended until Healthy Waters has finalised their modelling. No financial contribution will be sought to remove Tagalad Reserve from the asset recycling list until stormwater modelling is completed.

110.   There are other sites that were included in Schedule A and Schedule B of the Emergency Budget asset recycling lists that have not progressed for disposal. This has been due to further investigation identifying issues with the site, including a stormwater requirement or flood risk. These sites have been returned to the local board portfolios without cost to the relevant local boards.[28]

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

111.   The following table outlines the potential risks and mitigations for the local board in taking on Tagalad Reserve as a community service property.


Table 3 - Risks and mitigation



Currently unidentified building or site works required to make the facilities and grounds fit for purpose 

The local board will need to have sufficient funding available to undertake further assessments if required.

Clear allocation of responsibilities for obtaining a Building Warrant of Fitness will need to be confirmed.  

Multiple community groups with incompatible uses advocate for space at the site

Ensure clear decision making, roles and responsibilities are mapped out and agreed.

Confirm process for decision making is transparent, for example via an expression of interest (EOI) process.

Oversupply of community space in the area results in competition with other community facilities.

Community space is underutilised / not successful.


Staff work with the local board to confirm the scope of service delivery impact to best target users who may not be provided for currently.

Decision making process is clear and suitability weighted to ensure most appropriate outcome for the site.

Financial risk - running the site as a community service is not sustainable

Detailed costing is undertaken to support the preferred operating model and to identify future liability.

The EOI process will need to understand the financial capacity of potential leaseholders to cover future costs.

Financial risk – reallocating budget to Tagalad negatively impacts renewals programme and services at other sites

Staff work with the local board to ensure they have sufficient information to weigh up options and make decisions on prioritising renewal work and funding for all sites and services in the local board area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

112.   If the local board decide to advocate for a community service use for Tagalad Reserve, this will require a resolution, subject to Governing Body decision, for Tagalad Reserve and buildings to be removed from the asset recycling programme and returned to service use within the local board’s service asset portfolio.

113.   Staff recommend that the local board advocacy report to Governing Body should include this report and its attachments.

114.   If the local board decide not to advocate for a community service use for Tagalad Reserve, the site will remain as a non-service property until Healthy Waters catchment modelling is complete. If a stormwater management purpose is not identified, rationalisation of the site should proceed.


Ngā tāpirihanga






Table of Ōrākei Local Board Resolutions



Mission Bay Kohimarama Community Needs Assessment - Final Report



Ngā kaihaina



Anna Papaconstantinou - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Angela Clarke - Head of Service Investment & Programming


Justine Haves - General Manager Regional Services & Strategy

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Glenn Boyd - Local Area Manager



Ōrākei Local Board

21 March 2024



Ōrākei Local Board

21 March 2024



[1] Service property is used to deliver council community services. Non-service property is owned or managed by council but does not have a current or identified funded future use for community services.

[2] Light Blue - Lot 8 DP 24973, NA663/168 (Title NA663/168 also includes Lot 2 DP 24973, which is the reserve referred to as Tagalad North, above). Purple - Lot 2 DP 191846, NA121A/926. 

[3] Service property is used to deliver council community services. Non-service property is owned or managed by council but does not have a current or identified funded future use for community services.

[4] Presented at a workshop 27 September 2018

[5] The sale of assets to enable investment in other assets or services

[6] FIN/2020/31. Schedule B was comprised of properties not yet declared surplus and subject to further investigation. The rationalisation process involves historical, legal and technical analysis of the site, followed by consultation with council departments, relevant Council Controlled Organisations, local boards, ward councillors, mana whenua and the Independent Māori Statutory Board. If no service use, future-funded project or strategic purpose is identified for a property it is considered for disposal.  

[7] OR/2022/65

[8] Auckland Plan, Auckland Unitary Plan, Community Facilities Network Plan, Open Space provision policy

[9] The study area was defined based on existing information, geography, census area units, provision guidelines of the CFNP and other policies and plans, and through discussion with relevant staff members.

[10] (i11V6) model LTP 21-31 Growth Assumptions

[11] 701 new dwellings for the entire local board area between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022. 406 of these being for townhouses, flats or units, 164 for standalone houses and 49 apartments. 

[12] For small community spaces - within a 15-minute walk of a local or town centre and with a target population of 5000-10,000. For large community spaces - within a 15-minute drive of a metro or key town centre and with at target population of 20,000 plus.  

[13] Community centres, arts centres and venues for hire

[14] Workshop 27 Sept 2018

[15] Memo dated April 2021

[16] OR/2019/183

[17] OR/2019/194 - Ōrākei Play Network Gap Analysis, 2019 

[18] Community leases may be considered as part of the future review of the CFNP.

[19] Correspondence with Wanda Mountfort - MBKRA – 14 December 2023.

[20] Several of the needs assessment interviewees identified a general preference for a multi-use service model for the site, with no one organisation dominating.

[21] Costs would pass to the lease group

[22] Space for seniors for example

[23] Approximately 2027

[24] Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei were approached during the needs assessment and deferred to Ngāti Paoa at this time.

[25] As at February 2024

[26] Option D ground lease model removes the ongoing building requirements (capex and opex) from the calculation. There may be other costs associated with handing buildings over as part of this option that have not been considered as part of these estimates.

[27] Noting that the ground lease only option will pass building maintenance and renewal requirements to the lease group.

[28] FIN/2022/59