Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2022
  4. Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council - [2022] QPEC 42

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council[2022] QPEC 42

Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council[2022] QPEC 42

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council [2022] QPEC 42

PARTIES:

SCENIC RIM REGIONAL COUNCIL

(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND HERITAGE COUNCIL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

518 of 2021

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 and 16 November 2021, 28 and 29 March 2022 and 2 June 2022

JUDGE:

Kefford DCJ

ORDER:

I order that the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council to enter the Beaudesert Pig and Calf Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place is set aside and replaced with a decision not to enter the Beaudesert Pig and Calf Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – where the Scenic Rim Regional Council appeals the listing of the Beaudesert pig and calf saleyard on the Queensland heritage register – where the appeal is made on the grounds of s 162 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 – where the basis of the entry to the Queensland Heritage Register was s 35(1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 – whether the Saleyard is important in demonstrating the evolution of Queensland’s history and the evolution of the pig or dairy industry in Beaudesert – whether the Saleyard demonstrates rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage – whether the Saleyard is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places – whether the Saleyard has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons – whether the saleyard should be included in the Queensland heritage register

LEGISLATION:

Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), ss 43, 47, sch 1

Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) ss 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 161, 162, 164, sch

CASES:

Enco Precast Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors [2022] QCA 94, applied

Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No. 2) [2017] QPEC 14; [2017] QPELR 391; (2017) 226 LGERA 1, approved

Vines v Djordjevitch [1955] HCA 19; (1955) 91 CLR 512, cited

COUNSEL:

C L Hughes QC and L I Walker for the Appellant

R S Litster QC and N Loos for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Holding Redlich for the Appellant

Crown Law for the Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction4

What is the relevant legislative framework?5

Who can appeal?5

What are the grounds of appeal?5

Who bears the onus?6

What is the nature of the appeal and the court’s powers?7

What decision-making criteria applied to the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council?7

What was the basis for the entry in the Queensland heritage register?10

What are the issues to be determined?11

What is the relevance of the Guideline?12

Section 35(1)(a) – Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s
history?12

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (a)?13

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record with respect to criterion (a)?14

What is the relevant historical context in which the Saleyard was constructed?14

What was the importance of the dairy industry in Queensland in the first half of the twentieth century?15

What was the contribution of the dairy industry to the Beaudesert region in the first half of the twentieth century?16

What was the contribution of the pig industry to Queensland in the first half of the twentieth century?17

What was the contribution of the pig industry to the Beaudesert region in the first half of the twentieth century?18

What was the relationship between the dairy industry and the pig industry in the first half of the twentieth century?19

What happened to the dairying industry after World War II?19

What happened to the pig industry after World War II?21

What happened to saleyards after World War II?21

Conclusion regarding the historical context22

Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the evolution of the pig or dairy industry in Beaudesert?45

Conclusion regarding criterion (a)26

Section 35(1)(b) – Does the Saleyard demonstrate rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage?26

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (b)?26

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record with respect to criterion (b)?27

Does the Saleyard demonstrate rare or uncommon aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage?28

Conclusion regarding criterion (b)31

Section 35(1)(d) – Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places?31

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (d)?31

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record with respect to criterion (d)?33

Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a purpose-built pig and calf saleyard associated with the dairy industry?33

Conclusion regarding criterion (d)35

Section 35(1)(g) – Does the Saleyard have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons?35

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (g)?36

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record?37

Does the Saleyard have a strong or special association with the Beaudesert farming community?37

Conclusion regarding criterion (g)45

Should the Saleyard be included in the Queensland Heritage Register in the exercise of the discretion?45

Conclusion45

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The Beaudesert pig and calf saleyard (“the Saleyard”) is located at Helen Street Beaudesert.  Originally, it was part of the Beaudesert Railway Station complex. 
  2. [2]
    The Saleyard is a single storey, timber-framed structure that was purpose-built as a facility for selling pigs and calves.  The Saleyard structure is roughly square and measures approximately 22 by 24 metres.  It has an open side, with fences and circular log posts on its perimeter. 
  3. [3]
    Internally, the structure has a series of timber animal stalls or pens that are half height and constructed of timber.  The pens are divided by three races or walkways running east-west.  They are arranged in rows on either side of the walkways and were used to accommodate a range of livestock types. 
  4. [4]
    A row of log posts, running east-west through the structure, separate the Saleyard’s interior into northern and southern sections.  The largest pens are in the northern section.  They typically accommodated larger livestock such as calves.  The southern section features medium and small sized pens that held smaller animals such as pigs, sheep, and poultry.  The flooring is a mixture of concrete and earth.  The animal pens and passages are covered with a corrugated metal sheeted skillion roof.[1]
  5. [5]
    At the time the Saleyard structure was constructed, there were loading ramps on either side of the Helen Street frontage.  These allowed trucks and wagons carrying livestock into, and out of, the yard.  There is a pedestrian access gate in the eastern elevation.[2]
  6. [6]
    The Saleyard is believed to have been constructed in stages, with the calf sales section in use by January 1960.  The entire structure was ready for use by May 1961.[3] 
  7. [7]
    The structure has been modified since then.  The hip roof on the eastern side of the structure was replaced with a skillion roof after a storm in 1981.  The southern loading ramp was removed during the 1980s.  A detached office has been added to the southern elevation.  Fabric in the Saleyard structure appears to have been replaced as needed, including raised rails in the pens.[4] 
  1. [8]
    The Saleyard was used as a facility for the sale of small livestock such as pigs, calves, and poultry until it closed in March 2021.  When the Saleyard was functioning, the animals were held within the pens and could be viewed from the southern, eastern, and northern sides of the structure.  The entrance to the saleyard was from the west.[5]
  1. [9]
    On 29 January 2021, the Queensland Heritage Council made a decision under s 53 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) to enter the Saleyard in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place.  By letter dated 5 February 2021, Scenic Rim Regional Council was given an information notice about the decision under s 54 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.  Scenic Rim Regional Council commenced this appeal on 5 March 2021. 

What is the relevant legislative framework?

  1. [10]
    As an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court is a creature of statute, it is necessary to look to the legislation to ascertain the relevant parameters that guide the conduct of the appeal and the decision of the Court.

Who can appeal?

  1. [11]
    Pursuant to s 161 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, the owner of a place who is given an information notice under s 54 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 can appeal against the decision to the Planning and Environment Court.
  2. [12]
    Under the schedule to the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, “place” is defined as:

“1 Place means a defined or readily identifiable area of land, whether or not held under 2 or more titles or owners.

2 Place includes–

  1. (a)
    any feature on land mentioned in item 1; and
  1. (b)
    any part of the immediate surrounds of a feature mentioned in paragraph (a) that may be required for its conservation.”
  1. [13]
    The Saleyard is located at Helen Street, Beaudesert on Lot 32 on SP 113955.  Only part of that lot was listed on the Queensland heritage register.  The Queensland heritage register boundary follows the cadastre for its western, eastern, and part of its southern extent and is offset 10 metres from the Saleyard for its northern extent.[6]
  2. [14]
    Lot 32 on SP 113955 is owned by the Queensland government and leased to the Department of Transport and Main Roads.  The Department sub-leases land containing the Saleyard to Scenic Rim Regional Council.[7]  It is common ground that Scenic Rim Regional Council is an owner of the Saleyard for the purpose of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 and has a right of appeal.[8]

What are the grounds of appeal?

  1. [15]
    Under s 162 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, an appeal may only be made on the ground that the place the subject of the appeal does or does not satisfy at least one of the cultural heritage criteria.
  2. [16]
    In this appeal, Scenic Rim Regional Council alleges that the Saleyard does not satisfy any of the cultural heritage criteria in s 35(1) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. 

Who bears the onus?

  1. [17]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council notes that s 45 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) identifies which party bears the onus in numerous species of Planning Act appeal.  The onus shifts depending on the nature of the appeal.  In that respect, Scenic Rim Regional Council observes that:
    1. (a)
      in an appeal relating to a development application, the applicant will carry the onus in all circumstances;
    2. (b)
      for appeals against enforcement notices, the enforcement authority bears the onus; and
    3. (c)
      for an appeal by an affected owner of a compensation claim, the local government bears the onus.
  2. [18]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council submits that the situation is unclear for an appeal commenced under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.  Nevertheless, it is prepared to accept that it bears the onus of proof ultimately, but both parties bear an evidentiary onus to advance material that supports allegations they raise.[9]
  3. [19]
    The Queensland Heritage Council submits that Scenic Rim Regional Council bears the onus of proof.[10] 
  4. [20]
    The common law position with respect to the onus of proof in proceedings was recently considered by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Enco Precast Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors.[11]  In that case, Sofronoff P, with whom Bond JA and Brown J agreed, observed:
  1. “[18]
    In general, it is the rule that the party who asserts a conclusion must prove the facts that lead to that conclusion.[12] Courts and tribunals do not make orders affecting persons just for the asking; something must be shown to move the court or tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction to make an order to bind another person. Hence the old maxim “He who moves, proves”.”
  1. [21]
    There is no legislative provision that displaces the position at common law.  The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 does not identify which party bears the onus in an appeal against the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council to enter a place on the Queensland heritage register.  The Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 is also silent on the issue of onus for this type of appeal.
  2. [22]
    In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Scenic Rim Regional Council bears the onus of establishing that the Saleyard does not satisfy any of the cultural heritage criteria in s 35(1) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 or that the appeal should be allowed on a discretionary basis.  Even if I am wrong about that, as will be apparent from my reasons below, it makes no difference in this case.

What is the nature of the appeal and the court’s powers?

  1. [23]
    An appeal of this type is made to the Planning and Environment Court.  Part 5, div 1 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 applies to this appeal as if it was a Planning Act appeal[13] under that Act (with any changes the Court considers appropriate).[14]  As such, this is a hearing anew,[15] and the Court may confirm, change, or set aside the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council.[16]
  2. [24]
    As the appeal is by way of hearing anew, the Court is not bound by the opinion of the Queensland heritage council as recorded in the entry in the Queensland heritage register.  It is to determine the issues in the appeal on the evidence in the appeal.[17]
  3. [25]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council seeks to have the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council set aside and replaced with a decision that the Saleyard not be entered in the Queensland heritage register and that it be removed for the Queensland heritage register.

What decision-making criteria applied to the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council?

  1. [26]
    Under s 36(1) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, any person can make an application to the Chief Executive to have a place entered in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place. 
  2. [27]
    The application must be accompanied by:
    1. (a)
      a written statement, that is based on and refers to historical research, about how the place satisfies each of the cultural heritage criteria the applicant considers relevant for the place;
    2. (b)
      information about the history of the place that is based on and refers to historical research;
    3. (c)
      copies or details of material used for the historical research, including, for example, photographs, maps, plans and historical titles information;
    4. (d)
      a description of the features of the place that contribute to its cultural heritage significance, supported by photographs, drawings or other documents showing the features; and
    5. (e)
      a plan showing the relationship between the place’s cadastral boundaries, features of the place that contribute to its cultural heritage significance and the boundary proposed for the place.[18]
  3. [28]
    The owner of the place can make a written submission about the application.[19]  Details of the application are publicly notified and any person can make a written submission, known as a heritage submission, on the basis that the place the subject of the application does or does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria.[20]  In addition, the Chief Executive may ask a person or other entity the Chief Executive considers appropriate to make written representations to the Chief Executive about the place the subject of the application.[21]
  4. [29]
    After considering the application, the heritage submissions, any written representations sought by the Chief Executive and the other information the Chief Executive considers relevant, the Chief Executive must give a written recommendation, known as a heritage recommendation, to the Queensland Heritage Council about whether the place the subject of the application should be entered in the Queensland heritage register.  The heritage recommendation must be accompanied by a copy of the application, the heritage submissions, and the written representations about the place.  If the Chief Executive considers the place satisfies one or more of the cultural heritage criteria, the Chief Executive must recommend that the place be entered in the Queensland heritage register.  If the Chief Executive considers the place does not satisfy any of the cultural heritage criteria, the Chief Executive must recommend that the place not be entered in the Queensland heritage register.[22]
  5. [30]
    The Queensland Heritage Council must consider and make a decision on each heritage recommendation.[23]  Before making a decision, the Queensland Heritage Council may ask a person to make written representations about the place.[24]
  6. [31]
    The criteria that are to inform the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council are contained in s 51 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, which relevantly states:

“(2) In making the decision, the council—

  1. (a)
    must have regard to all of the following—
  1. (i)
    the application to which the heritage recommendation relates;
  1. (ii)
    the heritage submissions for the application;
  1. (iii)
    the written representations made under section 43 or 48 about the place the subject of the application;
  1. (iv)
    if the council allows a person or entity to make oral representations about the recommendation—the representations;
  1. (v)
    if the owner of the place gives the council a heritage response for the recommendation—the heritage response; and
  1. (b)
    may have regard to other information the council considers relevant to the application.
  1. (3)
    Without limiting subsection (2)(b), the council may, in making the decision, have regard to whether the physical condition or structural integrity of the place may prevent its cultural heritage significance being preserved.
  1. (4)
    Also, without limiting subsection (2)(b), the council may, in making the decision, have regard to—
  1. (a)
    whether the cultural heritage significance of the place is mainly because of its natural features; and
  1. (b)
    whether the place or its natural features are protected or conserved under another law of the State or Commonwealth, and the extent of the protection or conservation under that law.

Examples of places for subsection (4)—

1 a national park under the Nature Conservation Act 1992

2 a place on the national heritage list under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth)”

  1. [32]
    The nature of the decision that the Queensland Heritage Council is empowered to make is set out in s 53 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, which relevantly states:

“53 Council’s decision about entering place in, or removing place from, register

  1. (1)
    The council may decide to enter the place the subject of an application in the Queensland heritage register if the council considers it satisfies 1 or more of the cultural heritage criteria.
  1. (2)
    The council must decide to remove the place the subject of an application from the Queensland heritage register if the council considers it no longer satisfies any of the cultural heritage criteria.
  1. (3)
    In making a decision on a heritage recommendation for an application about the proposed entry of a place in the Queensland heritage register, the council may decide—
  1. (a)
    to enter the place, as proposed in the heritage recommendation, in the register; or
  1. (b)
    to enter the place, as varied from the heritage recommendation, in the register; or
  1. (c)
    not to enter the place in the register.”
  1. (4)
    In making a decision on a heritage recommendation for an application about the proposed removal of a place from the Queensland heritage register, the council may decide—
  1. (a)
    to remove the place from the register; or
  1. (b)
    to vary the entry of the place in the register; or
  1. (c)
    to leave the place in the register.”
  1. [33]
    As can be seen from the provision above, there is a broad discretion in determining whether to enter a place that satisfies one or more of the cultural heritage criteria on the Queensland heritage register.  That broad discretionary power can be contrasted with the mandatory requirement to remove a place from the Queensland heritage register if the place no longer satisfies any of the relevant cultural heritage criteria.
  2. [34]
    Accordingly, even if the Court is satisfied that the Saleyard meets one or more of the relevant cultural heritage criteria, it is not obliged to enter it on the Queensland heritage register.

What was the basis for the entry in the Queensland heritage register?

  1. [35]
    As I have mentioned in paragraph [32] above, the Queensland Heritage Council was empowered to enter the Saleyard in the Queensland heritage register if the Queensland Heritage Council considered it satisfied one or more of the cultural heritage criteria.
  1. [36]
    Under the schedule to the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, “cultural heritage criteria” is defined as the criteria for entry in the Queensland heritage register stated in s 35(1), which states:

“35 Criteria for entry in register

  1. (1)
    A place may be entered in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place if it satisfies 1 or more of the following criteria—
  1. (a)
    the place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history;
  1. (b)
    the place demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage;
  1. (c)
    the place has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Queensland’s history;

Example of a place for paragraph (c)—

a place that has potential to contain an archaeological artefact that is an important source of information about Queensland’s history

  1. (d)
    the place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places;
  1. (e)
    the place is important because of its aesthetic significance;
  1. (f)
    the place is important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period;
  1. (g)
    the place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;
  1. (h)
    the place has a special association with the life or work of a particular person, group or organisation of importance in Queensland’s history.”
  1. [37]
    The decision to enter the Saleyard was made on the basis that it met the criteria set out in s 35(1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.[25]

What are the issues to be determined?

  1. [38]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council alleges that the Saleyard does not satisfy any of the cultural heritage criteria in s 35(1) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.  The Queensland Heritage Council concedes that the Saleyard does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria in ss 35(1)(c), (e), (f) and (h) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.[26] 
  2. [39]
    As such, the parties agree that the issues that remain for determination are:
  1. Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history?
  2. Does the Saleyard demonstrate rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage?
  3. Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places?
  4. Does the Saleyard have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons?
  5. Should the Saleyard be included in the Queensland heritage register in the exercise of the discretion?
  1. [40]
    The evidence relied on by the parties to assist me with determining these issues includes:
    1. (a)
      the guideline titled “Assessing cultural heritage significance: Using the cultural heritage criteria”[27] (“the Guideline”);
    2. (b)
      the evidence of Mr Scott Richards, a heritage consultant and historian retained by Scenic Rim Regional Council;
    3. (c)
      the evidence of Dr Thom Blake, a historian retained by the Queensland Heritage Council;
    4. (d)
      the evidence of Mr Peter Marquis-Kyle, a conservation architect retained by the Queensland Heritage Council;
    5. (e)
      the lay witness statements of Mr Cliff Kroesen, Ms Sue Harrison, Mr Brian Ward, and Mrs Maree Ward; and
    6. (f)
      the submissions made during public notification of the application to enter the Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register.
  2. [41]
    Before considering each of the issues, it is helpful to understand the relevance of the Guideline to the assessment.

What is the relevance of the Guideline?

  1. [42]
    The Guideline was made under s 173(1)(a) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 to provide guidance to persons about making an application to have a place entered in the Queensland heritage register. 
  2. [43]
    The Guideline offers a model for professional assessment of historical cultural heritage significance in Queensland.[28]  It provides a methodology for identifying and assessing places eligible for entry in the Queensland heritage register.[29]  That said, the parties agree that the Court is not bound to consider the Guideline, nor can the Guideline modify the plain words of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. 

Section 35(1)(a) – Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history?

  1. [44]
    The Queensland Heritage Council alleges that the Saleyard is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history and, as such, satisfies criterion (a).  In support of its allegation, the Queensland Heritage Council relies on the Guideline and the evidence of Dr Blake and Mr Marquis-Kyle.
  2. [45]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council disputes the allegation.  It relies on the evidence of Mr Richards, which it says demonstrates that the Saleyard does not possess the requisite level of importance in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history to satisfy criterion (a).

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (a)?

  1. [46]
    The Guideline states that “Important should be interpreted in the broadest sense of the word”.[30]  The Guideline recognises that importance is a relative concept that is informed by a variety of factors including history, locality, and community perception.[31]
  2. [47]
    The Guideline recognises that it is necessary to consider to what extent a place demonstrates historical significance.  It recognises that a place may not fully demonstrate the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history in the fabric.  It specifically acknowledges that a place may be significant because it combines with other sources of historical information to demonstrate an aspect of the past that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to Queensland’s history.[32]
  3. [48]
    According to the Guideline, a place may be significant if it:
    1. (a)
      is the product, result or outcome of an event, phase, movement, process, activity, or a way of life that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development of our society or of our environment; or
    2. (b)
      is an example of a process or activity that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development of our society or of our environment; or
    3. (c)
      was influenced by an event, phase, movement, process, activity, or way of life that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development of our society or of our environment; or
    4. (d)
      has influenced an event, phase, movement, process, activity, or way of life that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development of our society or of our environment; or
    5. (e)
      is the site of, or is associated with, an event, phase, movement, process, activity, or way of life that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development of our society or of our environment; or
    6. (f)
      has a symbolic association with an event, phase, movement, process, activity, or way of life that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development of our society or of our environment.[33]
  4. [49]
    The Guideline states that the notion of thresholds, or levels and degrees of significance, is implied in the discussion of significance.   It says that the level of significance of the importance of a place in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history may be identified through the application of one or more threshold indicators, including earliness, representativeness, regional importance, distinctiveness or exceptionality, rarity, or some other quality of the place.[34]
  5. [50]
    With respect to the “regional importance” threshold indicator, the Guideline explains that places with regional historical significance can be important to our understanding of the development of a state as vast and as diverse in topography, climate, vegetation, land use, population, and social custom as is Queensland.[35]
  6. [51]
    With respect to the “rarity” threshold indicator, the Guideline explains that phrases such as “the last surviving”, “the only remaining”, “important surviving evidence”, and “rare early evidence of” are often employed in statements of historical significance when a place is significant because little else survives to illustrate a particular aspect of Queensland’s history.[36]

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record with respect to criterion (a)?

  1. [52]
    Although I am not bound by the entry in the Queensland heritage register, in the Joint Expert Report, when considering whether the Saleyard satisfies criterion (a), the experts’ analysis starts with the statement of significance in the Queensland heritage register.[37]  The statement of significance states:

“The Beaudesert Pig & Calf Saleyard, purpose-built 1960-1 for local auctioneer Gerry Stewart, is important in demonstrating the development of agriculture in the Scenic Rim. As the only surviving saleyard remaining from a large complex of saleyards at the Beaudesert railway station, it is important surviving evidence of the region’s dairy and pig producing industries, one of the most prominent in Queensland in the 20th century.”[38]

  1. [53]
    There is no dispute between the parties that the Saleyard was purpose-built in the early 1960s for local auctioneer Gerry Stewart, nor that the Saleyard is the only surviving saleyard remaining from a large complex of saleyards at the Beaudesert railway station.  However, there is disagreement about the Saleyard’s importance in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history.
  1. [54]
    As I have noted in paragraph [47] above, the Guideline says that a place may not fully demonstrate the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history in its fabric.  A place may be significant because it combines with other sources of historical information to demonstrate an aspect of the past that has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to Queensland’s history.  As such, before turning to the experts’ opinions about the significance of the Saleyard, it is necessary to understand what the historical information demonstrates about the role of the Saleyard in rural production in Queensland and in the Beaudesert region.

What is the relevant historical context in which the Saleyard was constructed?

  1. [55]
    A distinctive characteristic of Queensland’s development, compared with other states in the first half of the twentieth century, was that Queensland was the least metropolitan of the mainland States.  It had the largest percentage of its workforce in rural occupations.  Queensland also had a smaller manufacturing sector than other states, and the Queensland economy was more reliant on primary industries.[39] 

What was the importance of the dairy industry in Queensland in the first half of the twentieth century?

  1. [56]
    In the first half of the twentieth century, the dairy industry was a major contributor to the concentration of the population in rural areas.  It played a significant role in Queensland’s economy.[40] 
  2. [57]
    Dairying emerged as a substantial rural enterprise during the 1890s.  It grew steadily until 1940.  The industry was concentrated in the south-east corner of Queensland, but farms and factories were established in most regional centres along the coast, including Maryborough, Bundaberg, Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mackay, Ayr, and Cairns.  The total Queensland herd rose from 80,000 dairy cattle in 1898 to 1,080,000 in 1940.  A total of 31,270 dairy farms were in operation in 1940, supplying milk to 102 factories.  By the late 1930s, dairying was the largest rural industry in Queensland, and butter was the most valuable export after wool.[41] 
  3. [58]
    It is estimated that 90,000 or one–tenth of the State’s population depended directly on dairying for their livelihood.  Dairying was the catalyst for the growth of numerous settlements into thriving small towns, including Boonah, Biggenden, Murgon, Nanango, Pomona, Cooroy, Eumundi, Mount Tyson, Clifton, and Maleny.  The dairy industry also revitalised townships such as the gold-mining town of Gympie after gold declined.[42]

What was the contribution of the dairy industry to the Beaudesert region in the first half of the twentieth century?

  1. [59]
    The Logan and Albert Co-operative Dairy Company was established in 1904.  A butter factory was built in Beaudesert in the same year.  By 1906, 279 dairy farms were operating in the Beaudesert region and the Brisbane Courier reported that “no industry has made such rapid strides as that of dairying, combined with its attended, pig-raising”.  In the first year of production, the butter factory produced 241 tons of butter.[43]
  2. [60]
    By the 1920s, dairying was the premier industry in the Beaudesert district.  The Brisbane Courier noted in March 1922, that “a great deal of the present day prosperity of the district is due to the wonderful strides made in the dairying industry”. 
  3. [61]
    Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the annual output of the Logan and Albert Butter factory steadily increased.  In 1925, twenty years after opening, the output had almost quadrupled to 992 tons.[44]  The peak year for the butter factory was 1939 when 2,053 tons was produced from cream supplied by 599 farms.  The factory distributed £260,000 to producers – an amount equivalent to $23 million in today’s value. 
  4. [62]
    The dominance of dairying in the district was also reflected in the number of dairy stock handled by the Railways Department at Beaudesert in 1940.  The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Railways noted that number of livestock railed from Beaudesert included 223 horses, 2,378 cattle, 25,923 calves, 382 sheep and 35,230 pigs.[45]

What was the contribution of the pig industry to Queensland in the first half of the twentieth century?

  1. [63]
    Auction sales of pigs took place in Queensland towns from the mid-1890s.  Beaudesert was one of these towns where pig sales occurred.  Generally, sales were conducted at railway livestock trucking yards, or at purpose-built saleyards located at or near railway stations.  Most Queensland railway towns with a pastoral industry featured one or both of livestock trucking yards and saleyards.[46]
  2. [64]
    Auctioneers started selling pigs in Toowoomba and Esk in the late 1890s, and others started selling pigs in towns throughout the Moreton, Maryborough, and Darling Downs districts.  The Darling Downs towns of Toowoomba and Warwick were important towns in the early days of the pig industry.[47]
  3. [65]
    From 1897 to 1900, pig sales were reported at Toowoomba, Munbilla, Laidley, Helidon, Gatton, Rosewood, Esk, Boonah, Caboolture, Fernvale, Greenmount, and Oakey in southeast Queensland and in the Darling Downs district.  Another 65 Queensland towns reported holding pig sales between 1900 and 1949. 
  4. [66]
    Between the 1890s and 1950s, more than 100 Queensland towns reported holding regular pig sales on a weekly, fortnightly, or monthly basis, sometimes in conjunction with calf sales.[48]
  5. [67]
    In 1939, the towns of Harristown, Oakey, Pittsworth, Warwick, Clifton, Allora, Crow’s Nest, Gympie, Rockhampton, and Beaudesert had saleyards processing tens of thousands of pigs and calves per annum.  This was in addition to the Cannon Hill saleyards in Brisbane, which was established in the early 1930s.[49]
  6. [68]
    Purpose-built pig and calf saleyards were constructed in at least 40 towns, with some (such as Warwick and Toowoomba) featuring multiple saleyards.[50]  In major pig production areas such as the Darling Downs, large saleyards were constructed in towns to facilitate the sale of pigs.[51]

What was the contribution of the pig industry to the Beaudesert region in the first half of the twentieth century?

  1. [69]
    The trade of pigs was an important component of the economy of the town of Beaudesert in the early twentieth century.[52]  In 1897, Beaudesert boasted a return of more than 6,000 pigs in the town.  At that time, they were the highest numbers in the colony.  Toowoomba and Warwick accommodated more than 5,000 and 4,000 pigs respectively.  In response, pig saleyards were constructed in Warwick in 1903, in Toowoomba in 1904 and in Beaudesert in 1905.[53] 
  2. [70]
    In May 1905, a local auctioneer, Montague Selwyn Smith, held his monthly pig sales at the railway yards in Beaudesert.  Over 200 pigs were yarded, and several buyers were present.[54] 
  3. [71]
    In 1906, Smith leased an area of land at the Beaudesert railway station from the Queensland Railway Department and constructed a saleyard for the sale of pigs.  This was described in a Brisbane newspaper article in the following manner:

“Over 3,500 fat pigs have been sold in the locality during the past twelve months. A local auctioneer just leased a piece of ground from the Railway Department near the station and has erected splendid yards for the purpose of holding sales similar to those in Toowoomba. It is thought this system will eventually supersede the present plan of selling at the sty.”[55]

  1. [72]
    These first saleyards were situated approximately 100 to 200 metres to the north of the subject Saleyard.  They no longer survive.[56]
  2. [73]
    Smith also established pig saleyards at Rathdowney, Hillview, Oxenford, Nerang and Booningba (West Burleigh) in the 1910s and 1920s.[57] 
  3. [74]
    In 1920, following a poor season, Smith began calf sales along with the pig sales but at a different site at the Beaudesert Showgrounds.[58]
  4. [75]
    By the early 1920s, Smith sold more than 10,000 pigs and about 4,500 calves through the saleyards at the Beaudesert railway station each year.[59]
  5. [76]
    In July 1934, the Beaudesert Times noted that Smith & Son:

“probably handle more pigs and calves than any other country agent in Queensland, and it is generally considered that they have worked it up to such a state of efficiency that it is considered equal to any in Queesland.”[60]

  1. [77]
    Around that time, the pig and calf sales each Monday became a regular event in Beaudesert.  Farmers brought their livestock to the saleyard at the station on carts, wagons, and small trucks.  After sale, the livestock was loaded onto trains and transported to meatworks and bacon factories in Brisbane, or to places further afield.[61] 
  2. [78]
    In 1940, an average of 500 pigs and 500 calves were sold each week.  The annual total sales in 1940 was 26,000 calves and 35,000 pigs.  In 1949, the total sales were 25,000 calves and 22,000 pigs.[62]

What was the relationship between the dairy industry and the pig industry in the first half of the twentieth century?

  1. [79]
    As I have mentioned above, by the late 1930s, butter was the most valuable export after wool.[63]  Butter was produced from cream that was skimmed off whole milk.[64]  By the early twentieth century, most dairy farmers were using mechanical cream separators.  Separating the cream from the whole milk resulted in skim milk.[65]  Skim milk was a valueless by-product of dairying.[66] 
  2. [80]
    To continue to produce milk, every cow had to calve annually.  Only a small number of claves were needed to replace older cows and most dairy farmers could not afford to rear excess calves as the milk was required for sale.[67] 
  3. [81]
    As such, in the early part of the twentieth century, working a dairy farm was not confined to milking cows twice a day and separating the cream.  The dairy farmer had to manage the excess number of calves each year, which they did by selling them.  They also had to manage the daily use of the skim milk, which they did by feeding it to pigs.[68]
  1. [82]
    Rearing pigs was not labour intensive, nor did it require significant capital.  Pigs only needed a fenced area with a shelter.  Selling pigs became an important source of income for dairy farmers.[69]  The pig industry never reached the value of the dairy industry in Queensland but provided a supplementary income for dairy farmers and the wider industry.[70]  By the early twentieth century, pig and calf sales had become an integral part of the dairying industry in Queensland.  Initially farmers would bring their calves and pigs to a railway siding, where sales were transacted, and the livestock was loaded onto railway wagons.[71]
  2. [83]
    In larger centres, purpose-built pig and calf saleyards were gradually erected to cope with the increasing number of pigs and calves offered for sale.  These saleyards were different from cattle or horse saleyards.  Pigs and calves required small pens as farmers sold only small quantities of stock.  By contrast, a beef producer could sell stock in lots of 20 or more.  The size of pigs and calves also dictated pens of a lower height compared with cattle pens.  Another distinctive feature of pig and calf saleyards was the presence of a roof.  When young calves were brought for sale, they required as much protection from the sun as possible.[72]

What happened to the dairying industry after World War II?

  1. [84]
    Following World War II, the dairy industry in Beaudesert experienced three main changes.  First, dairy farmers installed milking machines instead of milking by hand.  Because of the capital outlay for a machine, it was more efficient if you had a larger herd, and milking machines made it possible to increase the size of the herd.  Amalgamation of farms became common practice as those seeking to leave the industry often sold to a neighbour seeking to increase their herd.  This did not, however, result in a diminution of output.[73] 
  2. [85]
    The second major change was the introduction of new and improved breeds and pasture improvements.  The output from each cow improved significantly by the 1960s compared with earlier decades.[74]
  3. [86]
    The third major change was the change to selling whole milk, rather than cream.  In the 1940s, dairy farmers began sending milk in cans to the Beaudesert butter factory.  The milk was then sent to Brisbane for domestic consumption.  Beaudesert dairies were well positioned to supply the Brisbane market because of their proximity to it and the ability to deliver the milk quickly, unlike many other more distant dairying districts.  The whole milk operation developed rapidly.  It rose from 1.9 million litres in 1945 to 6.1 million litres in 1954, 8.2 million litres in 1965, and to 24.4 million litres in 1975.[75]  Nevertheless, in the 1950s and 1960s, butter was still produced at the Beaudesert butter factory.  There was 1,165 tons produced in 1954 and 1,353 tons produced in 1965.[76]
  4. [87]
    In 1973, the United Kingdom entered the European Economic Community.  This negatively impacted the dairy industry as it removed the principal overseas market for Queensland butter.  Numerous butter factories in Queensland closed soon after 1973.  The Beaudesert butter factory continued producing butter until 1982.  It was one of the last to manufacture butter in Queensland.[77]
  5. [88]
    As the demand for cream declined, the Logan and Albert Factory began developing alternative outlets for locally produced milk.  In the late 1970s, the factory installed equipment to package and distribute “Beaudesert Milk”. This enabled the factory to continue receiving and processing local milk until 1995.  Dairying continued in the district with a small number of large dairy farms with herds of 250 to 300 cows. 

What happened to the pig industry after World War II?

  1. [89]
    After World War II, Beaudesert’s position as Queensland’s premier pig producing and selling region began to decline.  The Beaudesert Tramway line closed in 1944, cutting the railway link between Beaudesert and the surrounding region.  Beaudesert’s pig numbers were affected.
  2. [90]
    In 1946, the town slipped to second place behind Kingaroy in terms of pigs sold and overall production in the industry.  By 1949, it was fourth behind Kingaroy, Oakey, and Murgon.  The calf numbers fared slightly better, but also began to decrease by the mid-1950s.
  3. [91]
    Dwindling pig numbers were also due to the introduction of the “whole milk” or “bulk milk” system adopted by Beaudesert region dairy farmers shortly after the war.  The sale of unseparated milk meant there was no skim milk for pigs and calves, and pig farming in dairy regions subsequently fell away.[78]  The impact of the bulk milk system was particularly noticeable in Beaudesert and the Moreton district, where both the pig population and the number of holdings which farmed pigs fell from the 1950s.[79]  Dairy farmers around Beaudesert began to shift to cattle production. 
  4. [92]
    In 1952, the New South Wales company Tancred Brothers opened a large meatworks at Bromelton, five miles west of Beaudesert.  The company processed and transported frozen meat to Sydney and Britain.  The meatworks included a poultry and bacon factory.  Initially, much of its stock was drawn from the local area.  This provided a market for Beaudesert’s pig and calf industry through the 1950s.[80]
  5. [93]
    Tancred Brothers leased trucking yards at the Beaudesert Railway Station complex, where cattle, sheep and other livestock were received and walked to Bromelton.  In 1953, auctioneer Frank Ahearn opened a new pig and calf saleyard at the complex, operating it in conjunction with New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency.[81]
  6. [94]
    The subject Saleyard was not planned until 1959, when auctioneer Gerald Stewart purchased Ahearn’s stock and station agency and announced plans to construct new calf yards at that time.  In September 1959, Stewart leased an area of land at the Beaudesert Railway Station yards fronting Helen Street.  The lease allowed Stewart to use the site for the construction of saleyards and to receive, weigh and truck pigs and calves by rail.[82]
  1. [95]
    A second wave of Queensland’s pig industry developed from the 1950s.  It was associated with grain grown in western and central Queensland districts, particularly in the Darling Downs and Wide Bay regions, where pigs were fed on grain, maize, or sorghum.[83]  This phase of development and expansion in the pig industry bypassed Beaudesert as it depended on crops that could not be grown profitably in the Beaudesert region.[84]
  1. [96]
    In 1961, Beaudesert’s rail services were reduced to a tri-weekly goods service.  By the 1970s, most of the pig yards run by the bacon factories at Beaudesert were abandoned and replaced with more trucking yards for Tancred Brothers.  Sales at Selwyn Smith’s pig and calf saleyard ceased in the late 1970s, and the structures were demolished in 1981.  With the removal of the other saleyards, Stewart’s saleyard (the subject Saleyard) was the only remaining saleyard in the town that was purpose-built for the sale of small livestock.[85]

What happened to saleyards after World War II?

  1. [97]
    The saleyard system of selling declined in the second half of the twentieth century, as pig farms consolidated into large scale commercial enterprises that sold directly to meatworks and factories.  Small pig and calf saleyards at railway towns became less economically viable, and many were demolished or removed.  In dairying centres where sales continued, such as Gatton and Gympie, saleyards were removed from their original locations adjacent to railway stations and rebuilt outside town boundaries, in response to complaints about the noise, smell and potential for disease.[86]
  2. [98]
    Some were built to a large scale, such as the Kingaroy Shire Council’s pig and calf saleyards, constructed in 1954 at a cost of £12,500.  In the grain-growing districts, large, centralised saleyards were constructed along trucking routes by local authorities and joint enterprises.  Some, such as those erected at Biloela around 1968, included metal pens that reduced bruising and injury caused by hard-edged timber.  As the saleyard system continued to decline, most of these saleyards were abandoned, demolished (as in Kingaroy) or absorbed into cattle saleyards and redeveloped.[87]
  3. [99]
    In 1995, the Bromelton meatworks closed.  In 1996, the Beaudesert Railway Station was closed, and the unused cattle and pig trucking facilities and saleyards at the station complex were gradually removed in the early twenty-first century.  The Queensland Railways pig yard was removed between 2004 and 2007.  The former Stewart saleyard remained onsite, as sales continued.  The sales were taken over by agents Hayes and Co in 2003, and operated fortnightly, when producers offered calves, poultry and occasionally sheep and lambs for sale.[88]
  4. [100]
    Of the known pig and calf saleyards constructed in Queensland in the twentieth century, nine survive (including those at Beaudesert).  They include functioning saleyards at Warwick Railway Station, Harristown in Toowoomba, Eumundi, Woolooga, and Woodford.  There are also saleyards that no longer function at Gatton, Gympie, and Biggenden.[89]

Conclusion regarding the historical context

  1. [101]
    There was no dispute between the experts about the historical context set out in paragraphs [55] to [100] above and I accept it.  It is consistent with the history recorded in the entry in the Queensland heritage register[90] and is supported by historical references appended to Mr Richards’ report.[91] 

Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the evolution of the pig or dairy industry in Beaudesert?

  1. [102]
    Dr Blake, a historian retained by the Queensland Heritage Council, says that the Beaudesert district was prominent in the Queensland dairying industry, and that dairying was a major industry in the Beaudesert district from the early 1900s to the 1970s.  He does not dispute that the pig trade was not as important as the sheep, cattle, and dairy industries in the Beaudesert region.  Although in the Joint Expert Report, Dr Blake expressed the opinion that it was a major industry only until the 1960s, he revised this opinion in his individual report.[92] 
  2. [103]
    In his individual report, Dr Blake opines that the dairy industry was still thriving in the Beaudesert district in the 1960s.[93]  In support of that opinion, Dr Blake says that the Beaudesert Times unfailingly reported on the local pig and calf sales in each weekly edition.  He says that in 1965, sales were held each week by two agents, Elders and Stewart and Fitzsimmons.  A total of 54,576 calves and pigs were sold during 1965.  Dr Blake says this is higher than sales in 1940 and 1949, which he says demonstrates that the dairy industry was still thriving in the Beaudesert district in the 1960s.  He also says that the fact that Mr Stewart was prepared to build the Saleyard in 1960 and 1961 is indicative that Mr Stewart did not see a decline in the local dairying industry.[94]
  3. [104]
    Dr Blake considers the saleyard was an integral part of the dairying infrastructure in the Beaudesert district, which included the Logan and Albert butter factory, individual dairy farms and the rail network.[95]
  4. [105]
    For those reasons, Dr Blake opines that the Saleyard meets the threshold for criterion (a).  He says it is evidence of the Beaudesert dairying industry.[96]
  5. [106]
    Like Dr Blake, Mr Marquis-Kyle, a conservation architect retained by the Queensland Heritage Council, opines that the Saleyard is of regional importance because it demonstrates the historical importance of dairying in the Beaudesert region.  He says that dairying was a major industry in the district from the early 1900s to the 1970s but does not explain the basis of that opinion.  He says the Saleyard was an integral part of the dairying infrastructure in the Beaudesert district that included the Logan and Albert Butter factory, individual dairy farms and the rail network.[97]
  6. [107]
    Mr Marquis-Kyle says that the fabric of the Saleyard is intact and unchanged since the last sale and displays.  He says it provides tangible evidence of the role that the Saleyard played in the dairy industry.  He opines that there is a link between the fabric of the Saleyard and the pattern of use of the Saleyard, which involved bringing in pigs and calves from the farms to the Saleyard, showing the pigs and calves to potential buyers, conducting the auction, transferring payment and ownership, and taking the animals away.[98]
  1. [108]
    Mr Richards, a heritage consultant and historian retained by Scenic Rim Regional Council, acknowledges that the Saleyard is an element of infrastructure that was constructed for a primary industry that contributed to the Queensland economy.  He says that although the pig industry was not as important as the sheep, beef, and dairy industries, it still contributed to the Beaudesert region’s economy over the years.[99]  He acknowledges that in the Beaudesert region, the pig industry was linked to the dairy industry.[100]  He accepts that dairying was an important industry in the Beaudesert district from the beginning of the twentieth century and that it continued with that role in the early part of the twentieth century.  During cross-examination, Mr Richards accepted that, in terms of milk volumes, the dairying industry was thriving in Beaudesert through to 1975, but the number of holdings and the number of cows were decreasing around that time.[101]
  1. [109]
    During cross-examination, Mr Richards accepted that, at the time when the dairying industry was focussed on the production of cream and had skim milk as a by-product:
    1. (a)
      calves and pigs were a by-product of the dairy industry;
    2. (b)
      there was an extensive number of dairy farmers that were dependent on the Saleyard as an avenue for selling their calves and pigs;
    3. (c)
      the sale of calves and pigs supplemented the income of the dairy farmers;
    4. (d)
      the sales were, at times, an important supplement to the income of those farmers; and
    5. (e)
      it was not an optional undertaking; it was really a necessity, because the farmers needed to keep the cows falling pregnant each year and they needed to get rid of the calves if they were not going to keep them and make them part of their herd.[102]
  1. [110]
    Mr Richards acknowledges that raising pigs was an ancillary function of the dairy industry in the early twentieth century.  He says that many dairy farmers reared pigs as a sideline operation as they could be fed on the skim milk by-product.[103]  However, Mr Richards says that situation changed around World War II.[104]
  2. [111]
    Mr Richards says that the expansion of the pig industry in Queensland in the 1950s was associated with grain grown in western and central Queensland districts and not the dairy industry in places like Beaudesert.  The 1950s dairy expansion was not experienced in Beaudesert.  He says that, at that time, dairy farmers in Beaudesert shifted to cattle production.[105]
  1. [112]
    Viewed in that context, Mr Richards opines that the historical evidence that the Saleyard provides of the pig industry is not of cultural significance to Queensland.  He opines that the Saleyard is not of sufficient importance to be entered in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place.[106]  Mr Richards’ opinion in this regard is premised on five matters.
  1. [113]
    First, Mr Richards opines that the Saleyard is not important in demonstrating Queensland’s history with respect to pig production.  The overall pig trade was larger and more important in other towns and regions in Queensland, such as on the Darling Downs and in central Queensland.[107]
  2. [114]
    Second, to the extent that the pig industry contributed to the Beaudesert’s region’s economy, its main contribution was at the end of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century.  That was the peak period for pig trade in Beaudesert.  Beaudesert’s position as one of Queensland’s main pig producing and selling regions began to decline in the 1940s and 1950s. 
  3. [115]
    Mr Richards notes that the subject Saleyard was not planned until 1959.  In September 1959, Stewart leased an area of land at the Beaudesert railway station yards fronting Helen Street.  The lease allowed Stewart to use the site for construction of saleyards and to receive, weigh and truck pigs and calves by rail.  In January 1960, Stewart announced that calves would be sold from the new calf yards from that month.  In April 1961, he announced that his regular pig and calf sales would take place in the new sale yards from May of that year.[108]  By reference to these facts, Mr Richards describes the Saleyard as relatively recent in heritage terms. 
  4. [116]
    Mr Richards accepts that when considering cultural heritage significance, it is not critical for a structure to be old for it to be significant.[109]  His opinion that the Saleyard is not of relevant significance is not premised on the age in years of the structure.  Rather, he regards it as critical that the Saleyard was constructed well after the peak period of pig production.  Mr Richards considers that as the Saleyard was constructed in the 1960s, it does not demonstrate the importance of the dairy industry in Beaudesert as this industry was declining at the time this Saleyard was constructed.  He says that the subject Saleyard cannot demonstrate the importance of the dairy industry in Beaudesert in the early twentieth century as it was built in the 1960s.[110]  In those circumstances, Mr Richards opines that the Saleyard does not provide important evidence of the early history of industry in Beaudesert, nor is it of regional importance.[111] 
  5. [117]
    Third, in 1961, when the Saleyard opened, there was no access provided from the Saleyard structure to the railway line to the east.  The Saleyard addressed Helen Street and road transport to the west, rather than the railway line and rail transport to the east.  This reflected the fact that, at that time, Beaudesert’s rail services were declining.  Rail transport was of lesser importance to the trade of pigs.  Although the railway yard would have been a convenient location for the subject Saleyard to be developed, unlike the earlier saleyards in the town, the Saleyard did not rely on the railway for the transport of its stock.  As such, the structure of the Saleyard does not demonstrate the earlier system of railway transport in the pig trade.  This Saleyard relied on the more standard, and perhaps mundane, road transport.
  1. [118]
    Fourth, for the reasons explained in more detail in paragraphs [123] to [150] below, Mr Richards opines that the Saleyard is not rare.  It was one of many that acted in the same capacity across Queensland.[112] 
  2. [119]
    Fifth, in terms of representativeness, distinctiveness and exceptionality, Mr Richards says that the Saleyard may be representative of an example of an animal stall and saleyard, but it is not distinctive or exceptional.  He says it is prosaic, ordinary, and rudimentary.  It is a simple series of stalls and pens covered by a steel roof that has been used for the sale of rural animals and other commodities since the 1960s.  It has no importance that transcends its utilitarian nature.
  3. [120]
    I do not accept the evidence of Dr Blake that the dairy industry was still thriving in the Beaudesert district in the 1960s and through to the 1970s.  During cross-examination, Dr Blake acknowledged that his opinion in this regard was premised only on a comparison of the sales in 1965 to the annual sales in each of 1940 and 1949, to which I have referred in paragraph [77] above, and his assumption about Mr Stewart’s observations.[113]  A comparison of the sales figures reveal that the 1965 sales were in fact lower than the sales figure for 1940, but higher than the sales figure for 1949.  Further, Dr Blake did not investigate whether there was any other explanation for the variation in sales, such as the impact of drought.  Dr Blake’s assumption about what Mr Stewart observed is speculation.  In those circumstances and having regard to the undisputed historical context set out in paragraphs [55] to [100] above, I do not accept Dr Blake’s opinion about the state of the dairy industry in the 1960s.  I do not consider his inference to be soundly based.
  4. [121]
    I prefer the evidence of Mr Richards to that of Dr Blake and Mr Marquis-Kyle.  Mr Richards’ provided cogent explanations for his views.  His explanations were supported by the historical references attached to his individual report. 

Conclusion regarding criterion (a)

  1. [122]
    Having regard to the undisputed historical context set out in paragraphs [55] to [100] above and the evidence of Mr Richards, I am satisfied that the Saleyard is not important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history.  It does not satisfy criterion (a).

Section 35(1)(b) – Does the Saleyard demonstrate rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage?

  1. [123]
    The Queensland Heritage Council alleges that the Saleyard demonstrates rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage and, as such, satisfies criterion (b).  In support of its allegation, the Queensland Heritage Council relies on the Guideline and the evidence of Dr Blake and Mr Marquis-Kyle.  Relying on the evidence of Mr Richards, Scenic Rim Regional Council disputes the allegation. 

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (b)?

  1. [124]
    Although the Court is not bound to consider the Guideline, it provides helpful context.  For criterion (b), the Guideline states that a place must demonstrate its significance in the fabric.[114]  It also states:

“There are occasions when places may satisfy criterion (b) if they are rare locally, but common elsewhere in Queensland. A place can be considered under this criterion if its rarity in a particular location is important in demonstrating part of the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history. Criterion (b) may apply to places in localities that have undergone considerable change and where very little evidence of earlier significant phases of history remains.”[115]

  1. [125]
    According to the Guideline, a place may be significant if it demonstrates or illustrates:
    1. (a)
      a way of life (including fashion, taste and aspiration) that once was common but is now rare or that has always been uncommon or is endangered; or
    2. (b)
      a custom that once was common but is now rare or uncommon or no longer practised or has always been uncommon or is endangered; or
    3. (c)
      a process that once was common but is now rare or uncommon or has always been uncommon or is endangered; or
    4. (d)
      a function that once was common but is now rare or uncommon or has always been uncommon or is endangered; or
    5. (e)
      a land use that once was common but is now rare or uncommon or has always been uncommon or is endangered; or
    6. (f)
      a design or form that once was common but is now rare or uncommon or has always been uncommon or is endangered.[116]
  2. [126]
    The Guideline indicates that the level of significance of the rarity or uncommonness of a place may be identified through the application of threshold indicators that examine the intactness or integrity of the place, its distinctiveness, and its exceptionality.[117]
  3. [127]
    With respect to intactness and integrity, the Guideline says:

“Criterion (b) is concerned with demonstrating rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage in the fabric of the place. Consequently the degree of intactness and integrity will determine if the place meets the threshold for state significance.

Intactness should not be confused with condition. A place may be substantially intact in the sense that most of the early fabric survives, but at the same time this fabric may be in very fragile condition.

Further distinction is made between intactness and integrity, with the degree to which fabric remains intact determining the integrity of the place. The greater the intactness of the fabric, the more easily a place can be ‘read’ as to how it functioned originally or has evolved over time and therefore the greater the integrity of the place.”[118]

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record with respect to criterion (b)?

  1. [128]
    The experts record that the statement of significance in the Queensland heritage register with respect to criterion (b) states:

“The Beaudesert Pig & Calf Saleyard is a surviving example of a 20th century purpose-built pig and calf saleyard. Once common in Queensland, particularly in the Moreton, Darling Downs and Wide Bay-Burnett regions, these saleyards have become uncommon with the decline of pig sales and transition toward direct selling practices since the late 20th century.

From over 100 towns which reported holding regular pig and calf sales, purpose-built 20th century pig and calf saleyards are documented at 40 towns, and only nine are known to remain throughout the state. While some alterations have been made to its fabric (including the replacement of the roof to a different form and lower height, removal of a large livestock loading ramp, and reconfiguration of some pen and race fences), the Beaudesert Pig & Calf Saleyard retains a high degree of integrity.”[119]

  1. [129]
    Although this is of interest, as I have already noted, I am not bound by the entry in the Queensland heritage register.  I am to decide whether the Saleyard satisfies this criterion having regard to the evidence before me in this hearing.  In that regard, I have the benefit of the evidence of the experts, as well as photographs of other pig and calf saleyards that still exist in Queensland.

Does the Saleyard demonstrate rare or uncommon aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage?

  1. [130]
    Dr Blake opines that the Saleyard is now a rare and endangered example of what was once a common type of structure that was an integral part of the dairying industry in Queensland.  He says that of more than 40 purpose built pig and calf saleyards in Queensland, only nine remain.[120] 
  2. [131]
    Dr Blake says that the saleyards at Warwick, Harristown, Biggenden, and Woodford were built in the 1950s and earlier.  The pens are of timber construction with a mixture of concrete and earth floors.  The roof framing is of timber and the roof is metal sheeting. 
  3. [132]
    The saleyards at Gympie, Gatton and Eumundi were built in the 1960s.  The pens were of metal construction with no differentiation between pens for pigs and pens for calves.  Each of those saleyards has a metal frame for the roof that is covered with metal sheeting. 
  4. [133]
    The saleyard at Woolooga was used for pig and calf sales but there were no purpose-built pens for pigs or calves at that location.[121]
  5. [134]
    Dr Blake opines that the subject Saleyard is most like the first category of yards in that it has pens of timber construction and differentiation between pig and calf pens.  He says that the saleyards at Warwick, Harristown and Woodford, and the subject Saleyard, are the best examples of traditional pig and calf saleyards.  As such, Dr Blake opines that the Saleyard is one of a rare group of intact pig and calf saleyards in Queensland.[122]  He says it is one of the most intact pig and calf saleyards in Queensland and clearly demonstrates its original function in a major dairying district in Queensland.[123]
  6. [135]
    In the Joint Expert Report, Mr Marquis-Kyle says that the Saleyard meets the threshold for intactness or integrity and warrants entry in the Queensland heritage register under criterion (b).[124]  In that report, Mr Marquis-Kyle did not reveal the basis of his opinion.
  7. [136]
    In his individual report, Mr Marquis-Kyle opines that the Saleyard is a rare surviving example of a class of place that was once common, namely calf and pig saleyards.  He says it demonstrates the characteristic features of its class.[125] 
  8. [137]
    In forming his opinion that calf and pig saleyards are a class of cultural place, Mr Marquis-Kyle relies on information in the Guideline that relates to criterion (d) and which states:

“‘Class of cultural place’ may refer to a broad range of types of places (such as ‘war memorials’ or ‘schools’), the group being defined by general form or function or use. More usefully, ‘class of cultural place’ may be applied to sub-categories of the broader type, such as ‘WWI memorials’ or ‘grammar schools’, where the type is defined more specifically by materials, design, construction technique, era, specific purpose or some other quality or qualities. There is no numerical qualification for what constitutes a ‘class of cultural places’, but the particular class should be readily discernible as such.”

  1. [138]
    Mr Marquis-Kyle opines that calf and pig saleyards that were purpose built to serve the dairy industry constitute a distinct class of place that share four principal characteristics.  First, they are located centrally in dairying districts (for the convenience of farmers frequently bringing animals for sale), close to transport infrastructure (for convenience of buyers taking animals away), and close to town facilities (for convenience of farmers transacting other business on sale days).  Second, they have small pens (of dimensions suitable for pigs and calves, singly or in small groups).  Third, they are roofed to protect animals that are vulnerable to stress from sun and rain.  Fourth, they have low-level loading ramps to suit utilities, trailers, and small farm trucks, as well as high-level ramps to suit larger trucks.[126]
  2. [139]
    Mr Marquis-Kyle says that, in addition to having those characteristics, calf and pig saleyards vary in scale (reflecting the numbers of pigs and calves produced in the surrounding dairying district) and vary in their materials and form of construction (with earlier examples being built of timber and later examples being built of steel).[127]
  3. [140]
    Mr Marquis-Kyle says that saleyards of this class are distinctly different from cattle saleyards built for adult stock, which are open to the weather, have larger pens, have taller and more robust rails and have loading ramps to suit large trucks including double-deckers.[128]
  4. [141]
    In his individual report, Mr Marquis-Kyle documents the basic attributes of each of the nine-surviving calf and pig saleyards, including the region in which each is located, the approximate number of roofed calf and pig pens, the approximate area under roof and the predominant material of the roof frame and supporting structure.  In Exhibit 3.04, for each of the remaining saleyards, Mr Marquis-Kyle provided several photographs of the saleyard (including an aerial photograph), details of its location proximate to the town and other notable landmarks such as post offices and former butter factories, and a description of the structure.
  5. [142]
    Mr Marquis-Kyle relies on three matters to support his opinion that the Saleyard is rare.  First, of the original class of more than 40, eight survive.  Second, of those eight survivors, three are recently-built, steel-framed examples.  Third, of the five remaining timber-built examples, three of them (being those at Biggenden, Harristown and Warwick) are larger than the subject Saleyard, and the Woodford saleyard is smaller than the Beaudesert saleyard.[129] 
  6. [143]
    Mr Richards opines that the Saleyard does not demonstrate rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland cultural heritage.  His opinion is premised on two matters.
  7. [144]
    First, Mr Richards says that the survival of 9 out of the 40 documented purpose-built twentieth century pig and calf saleyards does not demonstrate rarity, but a reasonable level of survival of a relatively rudimentary type of structure.[130]
  8. [145]
    Second, Mr Richards does not consider that pig and calf saleyards are an appropriately identified aspect of Queensland’s cultural heritage.  He says that they belong to a larger grouping of animal saleyard structures where sheep and cattle were bought and sold.  He says there are many other examples of animal saleyards in Queensland.  He notes that there are pig and calf saleyards at Warwick, Harristown in Toowoomba, Eumundi, Woolooga, Woodford, Gatton, Gympie, and Biggenden.  Cattle saleyards are also known to remain at Cloncurry, Mareeba, Charters Towers, Hughenden, Longreach, Barcaldine, Blackall, Roma, and Gracemere, as well as at other places.  Further, Mr Richards says that although the overall practices of animal sales may have changed over the years, and there are now less saleyards than may have been present in Queensland when compared to 100 years ago, the fundamental nature of animal sales remains the same.  He says there will always be venues for the trade of rural animals where buyers and sellers congregate to transact business.[131]
  9. [146]
    Despite holding this view, during cross-examination Mr Richards accepted that pig and calf saleyards are distinctly different to cattle saleyards for adult stock.  He accepted that saleyards for adult cattle are open to the weather, have larger pens, have larger gaps between the railings, have taller and more robust rails and have loading ramps to suit large trucks, including double deckers.[132]
  10. [147]
    I accept the evidence of Mr Marquis-Kyle about the typical characteristics of a calf and pig saleyard and the way in which they differ from cattle saleyards.  Nevertheless, I do not accept his opinion that the subject Saleyard satisfies criterion (b).  His assertions of rarity are founded on distinctions he draws between the Saleyard and other existing pig and calf saleyards by reference to the materials used to construct them and their size.  These are not features that he identifies as defining characteristics for the class of cultural place, being calf and pig saleyards, which he says demonstrate an aspect of Queensland’s cultural heritage.
  11. [148]
    Dr Blake’s opinion about rarity is similarly unpersuasive.  Like Mr Marquis-Kyle, Dr Blake appears to identify the aspect of Queensland’s cultural heritage as calf and pig saleyards, being a class of structure that was an integral part of the dairying industry in Queensland.  Critical to Dr Blakes opinion that the Saleyard is a rare example of that type of structure is the distinctions that he draws between the subject Saleyard and other remaining saleyards.  His distinctions are based on the decade of construction, the materials used in construction and the differentiation between pig and calf pens.  Dr Blake does not explain the relevance of those distinctions to the demonstration of a class of structure that was an integral part of the dairying industry. 
  12. [149]
    Ultimately, assuming the aspect of Queensland’s cultural heritage is that identified by Mr Marquis-Kyle and Dr Blake, whether that aspect is rare or uncommon is a question of fact that calls for a value judgment.  Having regard to the details of the remaining places identified by the experts, and the photographs of them, I am satisfied that the Saleyard does not demonstrate a rare or uncommon aspect of Queensland’s cultural heritage.

Conclusion regarding criterion (b)

  1. [150]
    For the reasons provided above, I am satisfied that the Saleyard does not demonstrate rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage.  It does not satisfy criterion (b).

Section 35(1)(d) – Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places?

  1. [151]
    The Queensland Heritage Council alleges that the Saleyard is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places and, as such, satisfies criterion (d).  In support of its allegation, the Queensland Heritage Council relies on the Guideline and the evidence of Dr Blake and Mr Marquis-Kyle.
  2. [152]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council disputes the allegation.  It relies on the evidence of Mr Richards.

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (d)?

  1. [153]
    The Guideline states:

“To assist in assessing cultural heritage significance under the provisions of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, criterion (d) is interpreted as follows:

A place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places if that place displays the defining features, qualities or attributes of its type, or variation within the type, or evolution of the type, or the transition of the type, where type or ‘class of cultural places’ illustrates a range of human activities including a way of life, a custom, an ideology or philosophy, a process, a land use, a function, a form, a design, a style, a technique or some other activity or achievement.”[133]

  1. [154]
    The Guideline states that, for criterion (d), a place must demonstrate its significance in the fabric.[134]
  2. [155]
    The Guideline says that a class of cultural place is a group or type of place that is associated with cultural (i.e., human) activity.  It may refer to a broad range of types of places (such as war memorials or schools), with the group being defined by general form or function or use.  A class of cultural place may be applied to sub-categories of the broader type, such as WWI memorials or grammar schools if the type is defined more specifically by materials, design, construction technique, era, specific purpose or some other quality or qualities.  The Guidelines indicates that there is no numerical qualification for what constitutes a class of cultural places, but the particular class should be readily discernible as such.[135]
  3. [156]
    The Guideline states that the principal characteristics are the major features, qualities or attributes that define the class of place.[136]
  4. [157]
    The Queensland Heritage Council notes that the Guideline states that “Criterion (d) mostly combines with criterion (a) dealing with historical significance.”[137]
  5. [158]
    According to the Guideline:

“Determining whether a place satisfies criterion (d) is the process of identifying to which class of cultural places a place belongs, how well the place demonstrates the characteristics of this class and if the place is significant to our understanding of this class as part of Queensland’s heritage. This is achieved by applying significance and threshold indicators.”[138]

  1. [159]
    The Guideline states that a place may be significant if it exemplifies or illustrates, amongst other things:
    1. (a)
      a way of life that has made a noticeable contribution to the pattern or evolution of Queensland’s history.  Often places demonstrating this quality include complexes where more than one building or structure survives, often with associated furniture, fittings, and other objects; or
    2. (b)
      a process that has made a strong contribution to the pattern or evolution of Queensland’s history.  A process may be industrial, agricultural, extractive or some other type of activity and the principal characteristics of the process may include elements of the landscape, buildings, structures and associated furniture, fittings, machinery, and other artefacts that survive at the place; or
    3. (c)
      a land use that has made a strong contribution to the pattern and evolution of Queensland’s history and heritage; or
    4. (d)
      a function that has been an important part of the pattern of Queensland’s history.[139]
  2. [160]
    The Guideline says that threshold indicators relevant to determining the level of significance for criterion (d) include intactness or integrity, earliness, rarity or uncommonness and exceptionality.[140]  Earliness may be important where the class of place is extensive.[141]  Exceptionality, through sustained use of the place for its original purpose, is a measure of the integrity of a place that goes beyond fabric.  A place which has sustained its original use better demonstrates its intended function than one that has been converted to another use.[142]

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record with respect to criterion (d)?

  1. [161]
    The experts record that the statement of significance in the Queensland heritage register with respect to criterion (d) states:

“The Beaudesert Pig & Calf Saleyard is an uncommon surviving example of a purpose-built pig and calf saleyard constructed in the 20th century in Queensland. While some alterations have been made to the saleyard, the place retains a high degree of integrity and is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of this class of place, which include its: location in a pig / dairy producing region, easily accessed by a major transport route; roofed structure for the provision of shade, with open sides that allow for light and ventilation to the interior; livestock loading ramps; fenced pens for the holding, separation, viewing and sale of livestock, accessed by races; pen heights and floor surfaces relative to livestock types; and provision of water and hosing down facilities.”[143]

  1. [162]
    Again, I note that I am not bound by the entry in the Queensland heritage register.  I am to decide whether the Saleyard satisfies this criterion having regard to the evidence before me in this hearing.  In that regard, I have the benefit of the evidence of the experts.

Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a purpose-built pig and calf saleyard associated with the dairy industry?

  1. [163]
    In the Joint Expert Report, Dr Blake and Mr Marquis-Kyle opine that the Saleyard is a member of a specific class, namely a purpose-built pig and calf saleyard associated with the dairy industry.  They say that the Saleyard displays the small-scale pens, the roof, and the animal loading arrangements that are typical features of that class.  Further, they both agree that the intactness of the fabric of the Saleyard, and its rarity, warrant its entry in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place.[144]
  2. [164]
    As I have noted in paragraphs [137] above, in his individual statement, Mr Marquis-Kyle refers to a statement in the Guideline about classes of cultural place in support of his opinion that a purpose-built pig and calf saleyard associated with the dairy industry is a class of cultural place.  Mr Marquis-Kyle does not further explain the basis of his opinion. 
  3. [165]
    In paragraphs [138] to [140] above, I have set out the characteristics that Mr Marquis-Kyle says are the principal characteristics of a purpose-built pig and calf saleyard associated with the dairy industry. 
  4. [166]
    Mr Marquis Kyle says the Saleyard displays each of these principal characteristics.  In terms of location, he notes that the Saleyard is centrally located in the dairying district, on part of the former railway land, and within walking distance of the post office, shops, banks, hotels, and other facilities of the town.  In terms of the pens, the Saleyard has small pens in separate sections for pigs and calves.  They are arranged to accommodate small numbers of animals in each pen.  There is a roof covering all the pens, although it is not original.  It is a skillion roof that replaces an earlier hip roof.  Finally, in terms of ramps, there are a series of three low-level ramps along the road frontage that are arranged to suit the loading and unloading calves and pigs from small vehicles.  There is also a high-level ramp for larger trucks.
  1. [167]
    As I have mentioned in paragraph [107] above, Mr Marquis-Kyle says that the fabric of the Saleyard is intact and unchanged since the last sale and displays.  He says it provides tangible evidence of the role that the Saleyard played in the dairy industry.  He opines that there is a link between the fabric of the Saleyard and the pattern of use of the Saleyard, which involved bringing in pigs and calves from the farms to the Saleyard, showing the pigs and calves to potential buyers, conducting the auction, transferring payment and ownership, and taking the animals away.[145]
  2. [168]
    Mr Richards opines that the Saleyard does not demonstrate any significance under criterion (d).  His opinion is premised on four matters.
  1. [169]
    First, Mr Richards says a purpose-built pig and calf saleyard constructed in the twentieth century is not a recognised class of cultural place.  In this respect, Mr Richards notes that there are no other pig and calf saleyards entered in the Queensland heritage register.  He says that another listing may be expected if a pig and calf saleyard was a well-known and accepted class of cultural place in heritage terms.  He further notes that there are no animal saleyards entered in the Queensland heritage register.  Two shearing sheds are entered in the Queensland heritage register as individual entries, but he says they are remarkable structures for a range of reasons that are specific to the histories of both of those places.  Mr Richards opines that a class of cultural place cannot be created to suit a particular nomination of a place.[146]
  2. [170]
    Second, Mr Richards is of the opinion that twentieth century pig and calf saleyards are not a class of cultural place in any event.  He describes the Saleyard as a very rudimentary and utilitarian structure.  It is little more than a simple series of animal pens constructed of timber posts, rails and palings covered by a modern steel roof.  Mr Richards says that given no other twentieth century pig and calf saleyards are entered in the Queensland heritage register, or indeed any animal saleyards, it is difficult to understand what the principal characteristics of this cultural place may be, or to accept that the characteristics are recognised in heritage practice.[147]
  3. [171]
    Third, Mr Richards notes that the characteristics of a twentieth century pig saleyard mentioned in the statement of significance are that it is located in pig or dairy producing region and is accessed by transport routes; it has a roofed structure for the provision of shade with open sides for light and ventilation; it has livestock loading ramps; it has fenced pens for the holding, separating, viewing and selling livestock that are accessed by races; it has pen heights and floor surfaces that are relative to the livestock type; and it provides water and hosing down facilities.  He says these are the basic elements of an animal saleyard.  They are not distinctive characteristics of a calf and pig saleyard.  In Mr Richards’ opinion, it is likely that all animal saleyards will be constructed in a pastoral region close to farms.  It is also likely the saleyard will be close to transport routes.  It is also likely the saleyard will have open sides so that inspection of stock is straightforward.  It is likely to have loading ramps, fenced pens, races, floor surfaces, and hosing down facilities.[148]
  4. [172]
    Fourth, Mr Richards considers that the Saleyard does not demonstrate any of the threshold significance indicators for architectural or historical significance under criterion (d) that are set out in the Guideline.[149]
  1. [173]
    The evidence of Dr Blake and Mr Marquis-Kyle does not persuade me that the calf and pig saleyards are a class of cultural place, or that the Saleyard is important.  The experts do not, for example, identify a relevant “range of human activities”[150] that calf and pig saleyards illustrate to make them a class of cultural place. 
  2. [174]
    I prefer the evidence of Mr Richards to that of Dr Blake and Mr Marquis-Kyle.  His process of reasoning aligns with that which is called for under criterion (d) and his opinions are well explained.
  1. [175]
    I am satisfied that pig and calf saleyards are not discernible as a particular class of cultural place of which the Saleyard is a member.  Further, even if it were a discernible class by reason of its demonstration of the process of selling pigs and calves as part of the way of life of a farmer in the dairy industry, I am satisfied that it is not important in that regard.  In that respect, I rely on the evidence of Mr Richards and my findings above with respect to the historical context, the absence of importance in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history, and the absence of rarity.

Conclusion regarding criterion (d)

  1. [176]
    For the reasons provided above, I am satisfied that the Saleyard is not important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places.  It does not satisfy criterion (d).

Section 35(1)(g) – Does the Saleyard have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons?

  1. [177]
    The Queensland Heritage Council alleges that the Saleyard has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons and, as such, satisfies criterion (g).  In support of its allegation, the Queensland Heritage Council relies on the Guideline, the evidence of Dr Blake, and statements of four lay witnesses, namely Mr Kroesen, Ms Harrison, Mr Ward, and Mrs Ward, and submissions made during public notification of the application to enter the Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register. 
  2. [178]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council disputes the allegation.  It relies on the evidence of Mr Richards.

What does the Guideline indicate with respect to criterion (g)?

  1. [179]
    The Guideline states that, for criterion (g), a place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons if that place has a perceived meaning or symbolic, spiritual, or moral value that is important to a particular community or cultural group and which generates a strong sense of attachment.[151]
  2. [180]
    The Guideline notes:

“Criterion (g) deals with places that are in the public domain and for which the community exhibits strong or special feelings or attachment. They can be places that are in public ownership (such as halls and schools), or places in private ownership that the community has been encouraged to identify with and to use, such as department stores and picture theatres. They can be places where people gather for spiritual reasons (such as churches) or places of recreation and resort (such as sports fields or swimming pools). They can be places associated with community commemoration, such as war memorials, or a physical landmark.”[152]

  1. [181]
    According to the Guideline, “community” should be defined in the broadest possible sense, as a group of persons who have a common interest.  The interest may be self-defined, but the community and its interest should be able to be recognised by the broader community of Queenslanders.[153]  There should be a readily defined group.[154]
  2. [182]
    The Guideline indicates that a strong or special association should be measurable by various means including long-term use, celebratory use, commemorative use, spiritual use, symbolic use, and community action.  The attachment can be dynamic with communities rediscovering attachments held by community groups in the past.  A place may be significant if it is:
    1. (a)
      important to the community as a landmark, marker, or signature; or
    2. (b)
      a place that offers a valued customary experience; or
    3. (c)
      a popular meeting or gathering place; or
    4. (d)
      associated with events having a profound effect on a particular community or cultural group; or
    5. (e)
      a place of ritual or ceremony; or
    6. (f)
      symbolically representing the past in the present; or
    7. (g)
      a place of essential community function leading to a special attachment.[155]
  3. [183]
    Indicators of the threshold of the significance include the length of association, the extent and degree of demonstrated community association, and the existence of a significant former association.[156]

What does the entry in the Queensland heritage register record?

  1. [184]
    The experts record that the statement of significance in the Queensland heritage register with respect to criterion (g) states:

“Located in the former Beaudesert railway station yard, which has served as a community meeting place for livestock sales since 1905, the Beaudesert Pig & Calf Saleyard is valued by the Beaudesert farming community as a site for a valued customary experience. The saleyard structure has sustained its use as a saleyard for livestock and produce since 1960.”[157]

  1. [185]
    It is worth again noting that, although this is of some interest, I am not bound by the entry in the Queensland heritage register.  I am to decide whether the Saleyard satisfies this criterion having regard to the evidence before me in this hearing.  In that regard, I have the benefit of the evidence of Dr Blake, Mr Richards, and several members of the community.  I also have a copy of the submissions made by members of the public in response to the proposal to list the Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register.[158]

Does the Saleyard have a strong or special association with the Beaudesert farming community?

  1. [186]
    The Joint Expert Report records that Mr Marquis-Kyle joined with Dr Blake in expressing an opinion that:

“… account should be taken of the views of people who have had long associations with the place – as dairy farmers, and as other participants in the calf and pig sales there – who made representations to the Queensland Heritage Council during the assessment process.”[159]

  1. [187]
    Despite expressing that view in the Joint Expert Report, in his individual report, Mr Marquis-Kyle says that it is outside his expertise to assess the strength of the association of the Saleyard with the community of Beaudesert for criterion (g).[160]  During cross-examination, Mr Marquis-Kyle accepted that questions pertaining to criterion (g) were beyond his expertise.[161]  As such, I do not give his opinion from the Joint Expert Report any weight.
  1. [188]
    Dr Blake opines that the calf and pig sale day was a regular and prominent event in Beaudesert from the early 1900s.  Sales were held weekly by the 1930s.  Dr Blake notes that in September 1936, in an article titled “Down among the Pig and Calves”, the Beaudesert Times reported:

“Monday in Beaudesert in a day on which only the quick-witted and agile should be abroad, for motor cars dodge hither and thither with alarming rapidity, threading their way through lines of wagons, carts, sulkies and all sort of conveyances … In about an hour and a half the steady stream had resulted in about 500 pigs and 500 calves being in the pens, and the mingled noises were deafening.”[162]

  1. [189]
    Dr Blake opines that the regular sale of pig and calves at Beaudesert was not just about the selling and buying of farm animals.  In his opinion, it was also a social and cultural event that became embedded in the life of the dairying community.  Dr Blake opines that the sales were a social occasion in that it was an opportunity to meet and socialise with other farmers.  It was also an opportunity to undertake business in the town.  Dr Blake opines that for dairy farmers who worked seven days a week, such events were limited.[163]
  2. [190]
    In the opinion of Dr Blake, the sale of a large volume of pigs and calves continued into the 1970s.  On that basis, he says that sale day brought a significant number of farmers and their families to Beaudesert each week.  He says that the Beaudesert Times always included an article about the weekly sales, which he says indicates that it was an important activity in the Beaudesert district that warranted reporting.[164]
  3. [191]
    During cross-examination, Dr Blake indicated that the relevant “community” which he says holds a strong or special attachment to the Saleyard is that part of the dairy farming community in the Beaudesert region that used the Saleyard to sell calves or pigs.[165] 
  4. [192]
    In addition to the evidence of Dr Blake, the Queensland Heritage Council relies on the evidence in the lay witness statements from Mr Kroesen,[166] Ms Harrison,[167] Mr Ward,[168] and Mrs Ward.  That evidence was not challenged by Scenic Rim Regional Council.
  5. [193]
    In considering the lay witness statements of evidence, it is important to remember the rules of evidence to which I must have regard.  The ordinary rule is that witnesses may speak only as to facts within their personal knowledge, such as things that they have personally seen or experienced.  Unless they are an expert, they cannot express their opinions.  Further, to the extent that they recount things told to them by others, it is not admissible evidence of the truth of what they were told. 
  6. [194]
    In addition, when considering evidence of individuals, particularly as it relates to events long past, it must be borne in mind that, in general, our powers of observation and of retention in memory of what is seen or heard are fragile.  Our minds do not operate like recording devices.  A reported recollection of an observation might be innocently mistaken.  Memory is fallible, and it fades with time, and it is exposed to distortion for other reasons, such as through susceptibility to the suggestions of other people.
  7. [195]
    Mr Kroesen’s statement records that he grew up in the Beaudesert Shire on a small-lot farm of approximately 33 acres.  His family bred Bradford cattle and grew crops, such as oats, to feed the cattle.  He recalls attending sales at the Saleyard with his father when his father wanted to buy or sell livestock.  He says that he did so when he was a child under ten years of age, which was in the mid to late 1980s.  He believes the sales were a real part of the culture of Beaudesert.  His belief was explained by reference to his observation that there were people parking their vehicles wherever they could find a spot, with no real order to it.  Mr Kroesen recalls pigs, calves and poultry being sold at the sales.  He recalls bric-a-brac was also sold at the sales.  His impression was that you could bring anything along and have it auctioned off.[169] 
  8. [196]
    Mr Kroesen says that he recalls older gentlemen attending the sales because the sales were an opportunity for a social gathering.  Mr Kroesen does not explain how he knew, at the time, that was the reason that other people attended.  He says that recently an older gentleman told him that the Saleyard was a good place to ask if there had been any rain.[170]
  9. [197]
    Mr Kroesen explains that after he completed his schooling, he did not visit the sales for more than 10 years.  When he again attended the sales, he noticed that the sales were conducted in much the same way they always had been.  He says there were still people, chooks, ducks, and calves everywhere and the atmosphere was as informal as ever.  He says the sales were still well attended with between 50 and 100 people – many older, some young.  Mr Kroesen says that people were still bidding without holding up a bidding number as most people knew each other.[171]  This appears to be an assumption made by Mr Kroesen, rather than a matter within his personal knowledge. 
  10. [198]
    Mr Kroesen says that the pig and calf saleyards offered small lot farmers and children a chance to buy a young animal, for example, a chicken, a duck, or a calf, and an opportunity to socialise.  He says the pig and calf saleyards provided a unique experience not afforded by a regular sale.  He says that larger livestock saleyards do not cater for small-lot farmers.  He says that the sales at the Saleyard allowed small-lot farmers to have a rural lifestyle and participate in a bona fide rural activity, being livestock sales.  Mr Kroesen does not explain how he has personal knowledge of the lifestyle of other small-lot farmers.[172]
  11. [199]
    Ms Harrison says that when she was a child, her parents had a dairy farm that was 100 acres in size.  She started attending the sales at the Saleyard in the early 1960s when she was about five years old.  She says they were always held on a Monday.  Ms Harrison recalls that her parents would buy smaller, cheaper calves, feed them excess milk from their dairy farm and sell the calves about six months later for a profit.[173]
  12. [200]
    Ms Harrison says that Mondays were Beaudesert’s “biggest boom day”.  She believes this is because people would go to the sales at the Saleyard to catch up with other people, even if they were not intending to buy or sell animals.  Ms Harrison says that the sales were usually over within an hour or two and that people often ended up at the pub for lunch after the sales were finished.  She said that after lunch, people would often go grocery shopping while there were in town.[174]  Although Ms Harrison’s evidence in this respect was not challenged, it is hard to accept that a young child of a dairy farmer had personal knowledge of the biggest boom day in Beaudesert and that she had personal knowledge of the reason that other people attended and personally knew of their actions following the sales.
  13. [201]
    In 1977, Ms Harrison married the son of a beef producer from Cedar Grove.  Her and her husband have owned a cattle farm in that area since they got married.  They also kept sheep.  Ms Harrison says that after she was married, she would attend sales at the Saleyard when she had calves or sheep to sell.[175]  She did not provide any indication of how often that would occur.
  14. [202]
    Ms Harrison says that the Saleyard has always been a big meeting place for people when the sales were held.  She says that in recent years, older people still gathered at the sales to catch up with each other.  She says that on school holidays, you would often see young children with their grandparents at the sales, and the grandparents would be explaining to the children how the sales worked and what the grandparents bought and sold at the sales when they were children.[176]  Assuming these are matters of which Ms Harrison has personal knowledge based on her own observations, Ms Harrison does not provide any indication of the frequency of her observations or the time during which they were made. 
  15. [203]
    Ms Harrison says that the Saleyards have always been an outlet for small rural land holders.  She says that in addition to the social aspect, the sales gave small rural land holders the opportunity to sell their livestock.[177]  Although I can appreciate that, to a degree, Ms Harrison may be aware of such matters from her own experience, it is difficult to appreciate how she has knowledge of the situation for other small rural land holders.
  16. [204]
    Mr Ward gave evidence that he grew up in Beaudesert and still lives there.  He says that in the 1950s, he worked with his dad carting pigs and calves to the sales at the Saleyard.  He says that he remembers seeing farmers attending the sales at the Saleyard in utes with crates on the back for the animals.  He says the farmers wore their work clothes and gum boots.  Mr Ward says that some people would sell cucumbers, chokos and eggs at the sales.  He also remembers people selling chickens and goats.  He says that the sales were attended by local farmers, who were the people that built the town of Beaudesert.  He says those farmers used to, and still do, shop locally in Beaudesert.[178]
  17. [205]
    Given the compelling evidence, which I accept, that the Saleyard was built no earlier than 1960, I find it difficult to accept the evidence of Mr Ward.  It seems to me that the accuracy of his recollection may be affected by the six decades that have passed since the events of which he gives evidence, and that his recollections may relate to the other, now demolished, saleyards in Beaudesert.  I also find it difficult to accept that he would have personal knowledge that the local farmers who attended the sales were the people that built the town of Beaudesert.
  18. [206]
    Mrs Ward gave evidence that she grew up in the Beaudesert area, but not on a farm.  She says that her grandfather used to cart things around Beaudesert, including pigs and calves.  She recalls her father telling her that, when her father was a boy, he went with her grandfather to the Saleyard.  Mrs Ward says that when she was about 16 or 17, in the early 1980s, she occasionally went to the sales at the Saleyard with her friend.  They never bought or sold animals at the sales but attended it as a social gathering place.  She says that a lot of country boys would attend the sales and that she and her friend would attend to socialise with them.[179]
  19. [207]
    Given the compelling evidence that the Saleyard was built no earlier than 1960, which I accept, I find it difficult to accept the evidence of Mrs Ward as reliable.  If Mrs Ward was about 16 or 17 in the early 1980s, it is implausible that her father attended the subject Saleyard as a boy.  I have no reason to doubt Mrs Ward’s honesty, but this evidence causes me to doubt the reliability of her recollections. 
  20. [208]
    I have no reason to doubt that each of Mr Kroesen, Ms Harrison, Mr Ward,[180] and Mrs Ward honestly believe the matters to which they refer in their signed statements.  However, my observations above about their evidence causes me considerable concern about the reliability of their evidence.  Although the evidence was not subject to challenge, I am not prepared to place considerable weight on it.
  21. [209]
    In support of its position, the Queensland Heritage Council also refers to the submissions received during the submission period.  The Queensland Heritage Council says that the submissions from the public include some from persons who had been to the Saleyard and experienced the role it played in the Beaudesert community.  The Queensland Heritage Council says that although some of the submissions evidence a mistaken understanding that entering the Saleyard in the Queensland heritage register might keep it operating, that does not detract from the attachment to the place.
  22. [210]
    The report to the Queensland Heritage Council records that 37 submissions were received during the submission period.  The report says that two submissions did not support the application and that of the 35 that supported the application, 29 were template responses (with 24 containing additional annotations) and six were individual submissions.[181] 
  23. [211]
    Copies of the submissions are attached to the report.[182]  The report’s summary of them is broadly accurate (although one of the submissions counted as “template” I would regard as an individual submission in support).
  24. [212]
    The proforma submissions in support of entry of the subject Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register support the listing on the basis that:

“The saleyards are one of the last Heritage Structures in Beaudesert that have not been demolished or lost by fire.  The saleyards continue traditional fortnightly livestock auctions which have persisted over 100 years in that location and represent a working part of Beaudesert’s history that must not be lost.  There are many attendees who have participated in the sales all of their lives and it is an essential part of the social fabric of the Beaudesert community.”[183]

  1. [213]
    There is an immediate difficulty with the content of this submission, namely that the evidence does not support the assertion that the saleyard referenced in the submission, being the one the subject of the proposed listing, has existed for 100 years in that location.  They are also no longer working.  It is also difficult to understand how those that signed the submission would know that “there are many attendees who have participated in the sales all of their lives”.  These matters impact on the weight that can be attributed to the proforma submissions.
  1. [214]
    That it is appropriate to approach the submissions with caution is reinforced by some of the personalised comments added to them.  For example, one proforma submission includes an additional comment that “we are only new to the area”.[184]  This comment follows on from the representations extracted in paragraph [212] above.
  2. [215]
    Further, although most of the submissions included additional comments, many of those comments did not reveal any strong or special association between the Saleyard and a particular community.  Rather, they express a general desire to retain historical structures.[185]  The same is true of several of the individual submissions.[186] 
  3. [216]
    Of those small handful of submissions that mentioned personal use of the Saleyard, including the submissions of Mr and Mrs Ward, the nature of their comments did not reveal a readily identifiable “community” or a special association that would be recognised by the broader community of Queenslanders (or even necessarily by the Beaudesert community).
  4. [217]
    I have carefully read all the submissions.  They evidence no more than a local interest in the general location where the Saleyard is located (including the remaining railway station that is not the subject of the proposed listing).  I am not prepared to afford significant weight to the submissions as evidence of a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons.
  5. [218]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council submits that the evidence of Mr Richards demonstrates that criterion (g) is not satisfied.  Mr Richards opines that the only group of people who may value the Saleyard for a valued customary experience over time would be the Beaudesert pig farming community.  This is a small subset of the wider Beaudesert farming community referenced in the significance statement.  He also notes that the Beaudesert farming community is itself a small subset of the wider Beaudesert community, which Mr Richards regards as the relevant community for consideration of criterion (g) in this case.[187]
  6. [219]
    Mr Richards says that it is debateable whether the wider Beaudesert community has any regard for the Saleyard structure over and above its presence in the town and has any special regard or affection for the Saleyard structure.  He notes that the peak period for the pig industry in Beaudesert was the early twentieth century, and this structure was built well after that time.[188] 
  7. [220]
    Mr Richards is of the opinion that the Saleyard does not represent any of the threshold indicators for social significance under criterion (g) that are set out in the Guideline, being length of association, demonstrated extent and degree of community association or significant former association.  Mr Richards explains the basis of that opinion.  He says that the length of association of the community with the Saleyard structure is relatively short in heritage terms.  His views with respect to the extent and degree of association are set out in paragraph [218] above.[189]
  8. [221]
    Mr Richards accepts that the Saleyard has been a place of business and transaction since the early 1960s but says this is not a long time in heritage terms.  Further, he says the Saleyard’s significance is little more than as a place of business and transaction.  In more recent times, the Saleyard operated as a general market, selling many types of commodities other than animals.  Mr Richards opines that this lessens whatever association the place may have had as predominantly an animal saleyard.[190]
  9. [222]
    For those reasons, Mr Richards opines that there is no significant former association with the place.  He says that the place was purpose-built as a saleyard structure and has now ceased operating as a venue for the market and sale of rural produce.[191]
  10. [223]
    Mr Richards agrees with Dr Blake that, in assessing whether cultural heritage criterion (g) is satisfied, account should be taken of the views of the people who made representations to the Queensland Heritage Council during the assessment process.  For that purpose, Mr Richards reviewed the submissions. 
  11. [224]
    Mr Richards observes that three of the submissions did not support the entry of the site in the Queensland heritage register.  One was from the Scenic Rim Regional Council.  Another was from the National Trust of Queensland, whose submission indicated that the place did not meet the thresholds or criteria for cultural significance as a State heritage place.  That submission further states that the Saleyard was neither early nor representative, nor does it appear that any strong or special association with the community was evident.  The third submission that did not support the entry of the site in the Queensland heritage register was from a member of the public.  It observed that the Saleyard was used for four hours once every two weeks.  Mr Richards also notes that a submission by the Department of Transport and Main Roads did not express an opinion about the listing as there was not enough information in the application documents for that Department to form a view at the time that it wrote its submission.[192]
  12. [225]
    Mr Richards says that a total of 34 submissions were prepared in support of the entry of the Saleyard in the Queensland heritage register.  Of those submissions, he says 12 were from persons who identified themselves as customers of the Saleyard.  He accepts that others may have been customers but notes that they did not raise this in the submission lodged.  Some made exaggerated statements in their submissions about the town having no heritage left if the Saleyard was demolished as part of Scenic Rim Regional Council’s revitalisation project.[193] 
  13. [226]
    Based on that analysis, Mr Richards opines that there are not many people who have long associations with the Saleyard and who made representations to the Queensland Heritage Council during the assessment process about that association.[194]  He says there were, perhaps, 12 persons who indicated they had been participants in the calf and pig sales at the Saleyard.  Given the size of the town of Beaudesert, Mr Richards does not regard this as constituting a community group for the purpose of criterion (g).[195]
  14. [227]
    Mr Richards also notes that a recent online poll in the local newspaper, the Beaudesert Times, taken in April 2021 after the Saleyard had closed, found that more than 50 per cent of the respondents did not want the pig and calf sales to continue at Beaudesert.  A total of 1,242 people provided responses in the poll.  Of this total, there were 719 (57.89 per cent) who voted for the sales to be finished and 516 (41.55 per cent) who voted to continue the pig and calf sales in the town.[196] 
  15. [228]
    Mr Richards says that, while perhaps not a wholly representative sample of a cross-section of all Beaudesert residents, the poll is useful, to some degree, in providing some evidence of recent community sentiment on the issue, albeit an informal snapshot of public opinion on the issue.  To assist with assessing its usefulness, Mr Richards observes that the population of Beaudesert is around 6,000 people.  As such, the poll represents the views of just over 20 per cent of the population.  Mr Richards regards this as a reasonable percentage.[197]
  16. [229]
    I prefer the evidence of Mr Richards to that of Dr Blake.  Mr Richards’ analysis of the submissions made to the Queensland Heritage Council is supported by the documents themselves.  He also provides cogent explanations for his opinions, which are supported by reasonable inferences drawn from facts that I accept.  The same cannot be said of the evidence of Dr Blake. 
  17. [230]
    The only facts to which Dr Blake referred to support his opinions was the content of the article published in the Beaudesert Times in 1936.  He did not provide copies of any other material on which he relied to draw his inferences.  For example, he did not reveal the basis of his opinion that the opportunity to travel to the Saleyard represented a limited opportunity to socialise for farmers. 
  18. [231]
    Having regard to Dr Blake’s contribution to the Joint Expert Report, his individual report, and his oral evidence, including my observations of his demeanour during his oral evidence, and my other findings with respect to his opinions on the other criteria, I do not find Dr Blake’s evidence to be compelling.  It seems to me that Dr Blake’s opinions are founded on speculation or inferences drawn by him from unsubstantiated facts or a shaky factual foundation. 
  19. [232]
    The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 does not specify a minimum number of people to constitute a community group.  Further, as the definition of “cultural heritage significance” recognises, associations are not to be identified by reference to the present generation alone, but also by reference to past generations.  Nevertheless, having regard to my findings above, I am satisfied that the Saleyard does not have a strong or special association with a particular community. 

Conclusion regarding criterion (g)

  1. [233]
    For the reasons provided above, I am satisfied that the Saleyard does not have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons.  It does not satisfy criterion (g).

Should the Saleyard be included in the Queensland Heritage Register in the exercise of the discretion?

  1. [234]
    I am satisfied that the Saleyard does not satisfy any of the criterion for cultural heritage significance.  In those circumstances, it is not appropriate for it to remain listed. 

Conclusion

  1. [235]
    Scenic Rim Regional Council has demonstrated that the Saleyard does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria. 
  2. [236]
    I order that the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council to enter the Beaudesert Pig and Calf Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place is set aside and replaced with a decision not to enter the Beaudesert Pig and Calf Saleyard on the Queensland heritage register.

Footnotes

[1]  Exhibit 6.02 p 5; Exhibit 3.01 pp 8-9.

[2]  Exhibit 6.02 p 5; Exhibit 3.01 p 8.

[3]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 6-7.

[4]  Exhibit 6.02 p 5; Exhibit 3.01 p 8.

[5]  Exhibit 6.02 p 5; Exhibit 3.01 p 8.

[6]  Exhibit 6.02 p 1.

[7]  Exhibit 5.04.

[8] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 sch definition of “owner”.

[9] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Golden Sphere International Inc (1998) 83 FCR 424, 450.

[10] Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd v Queensland Heritage Council [2012] QPEC 9; (2012) 191 LGERA 6; [2012] QPELR 422; Wallaby Grip Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2010] HCA 9; (2010) 240 CLR 444, 459 [36]; Currie v Dempsey [1967] 2 NSWR 532, 539; White v Johnston (2015) 87 NSWLR 779, [88].

[11]  [2022] QCA 94.  See also Vines v Djordjevitch [1955] HCA 19; (1955) 91 CLR 512, 519-20.

[12] Ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio. See Currie v Dempsey [1967] 2 NSWR 532; Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation Ltd [1942] AC 154 at 174. 

[13]  A “Planning Act appeal” is defined in sch 1 of the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 as “an appeal to the P&E Court for which the Planning Act is the enabling Act”.

[14] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 s 164.

[15] Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 s 43.

[16] Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 s 47.

[17] Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No. 2) [2017] QPEC 14; [2017] QPELR 391; (2017) 226 LGERA 1, 29-30 [153] and 33 [179].

[18] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 s 36.

[19] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 s 38.

[20] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 ss 38 to 42.

[21] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 s 43.

[22] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 s 44.

[23] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 s 47.

[24] Queensland Heritage Act 1992 s 48.

[25]  Exhibit 6.02 p 2.

[26]  Outline of Submissions of the Respondent p 3 [12]; Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 2 June 2022) 9-10.

[27]  Exhibit 5.01.

[28]  Exhibit 5.01 p 3.

[29]  Exhibit 5.01 p 4.

[30]  Exhibit 5.01 p 25.

[31]  Exhibit 5.01 p 13.

[32]  Exhibit 5.01 p 25.

[33]  Exhibit 5.01 pp 26-7.

[34]  Exhibit 5.01 p 27.

[35]  Exhibit 5.01 p 28.

[36]  Exhibit 5.01 p 29.

[37]  Exhibit 3.01 p 10.

[38]  Exhibit 6.02 p 2.

[39]  Exhibit 3.05 p 3.

[40]  Exhibit 3.05 p 3.

[41]  Exhibit 3.05 p 2.

[42]  Exhibit 3.05 pp 2-3.

[43]  Exhibit 3.05 p 3.

[44]  Exhibit 3.05 p 3.

[45]  Exhibit 3.05 p 4.

[46]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[47]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[48]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[49]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[50]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[51]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[52]  Exhibit 3.01 p 10.

[53]  Exhibit 3.01 p 11.

[54]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[55]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[56]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[57]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[58]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[59]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[60]  Exhibit 3.05 p 6.

[61]  Exhibit 3.05 p 6.

[62]  Exhibit 3.05 p 6.

[63]  Exhibit 3.05 p 2.

[64]  Exhibit 6.02 p 3.

[65]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[66]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[67]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[68]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[69]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[70]  Exhibit 3.01 p 5.

[71]  Exhibit 3.05 p 6.

[72]  Exhibit 3.05 p 6.

[73]  Exhibit 3.05 p 4.

[74]  Exhibit 3.05 p 4.

[75]  Exhibit 3.05 p 4.

[76]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[77]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[78]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[79]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[80]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[81]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[82]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 6-7.

[83]  Exhibit 3.01 p 6.

[84]  Exhibit 3.01 p 7.

[85]  Exhibit 3.01 p 7.

[86]  Exhibit 3.01 p 7.

[87]  Exhibit 3.01 p 7.

[88]  Exhibit 3.01 p 8.

[89]  Exhibit 3.01 p 8.

[90]  Exhibit 6.02.

[91]  Exhibit 3.02.

[92]  Exhibit 3.01 p 12; Exhibit 3.05 pp 5 and 8; Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 40.

[93]  Exhibit 3.05 p 6.

[94]  Exhibti 3.05 p 6.

[95]  Exhibit 3.01 p 12.

[96]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 12-3.

[97]  Exhibit 3.01 p 12.

[98]  Exhibit 3.04 pp 4-5.

[99]  Exhibit 3.01 p 12.

[100]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 17.

[101]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 13.

[102]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 14-5.

[103]  Exhibit 3.01 p 13.

[104]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 14-5.

[105]  Exhibit 3.01 p 13.

[106]  Exhibit 3.01 p 12.

[107]  Exhibit 3.01 p 11.

[108]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 6-7.

[109]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 16.

[110]  Exhibit 3.01 p 13.

[111]  Exhibit 3.01 p 11.

[112]  Exhibit 3.01 p 12.

[113]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 42.

[114]  Exhibit 5.01 p 30.

[115]  Exhibit 5.01 p 31.

[116]  Exhibit 5.01 pp 32-4.

[117]  Exhibit 5.01 p 34.

[118]  Exhibit 5.01 p 34.

[119]  Exhibit 6.02 p 2.

[120]  Exhibit 3.01 p 14.

[121]  Exhibit 3.05 p 7.

[122]  Exhibit 3.05 p 7.

[123]  Exhibit 3.01 p 14.

[124]  Exhibit 3.01 p 14.

[125]  Exhibit 3.05 p 5.

[126]  Exhibit 3.03 p 3.

[127]  Exhibit 3.03 p 3.

[128]  Exhibit 3.03 p 3.

[129]  Exhibit 3.03 p 5.

[130]  Exhibit 3.01 p 13; Exhibit 3.02 p 4.

[131]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 13-4; Exhibit 3.02 pp 4-5.

[132]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 17-9.

[133]  Exhibit 5.01 p 41.

[134]  Exhibit 5.01 p 41.

[135]  Exhibit 5.01 p 41.

[136]  Exhibit 5.01 p 41.

[137]  Exhibit 5.01 p 42.

[138]  Exhibit 5.01 p 42.

[139]  Exhibit 5.01 pp 42-6.

[140]  Exhibit 5.01 pp 47-8.

[141]  Exhibit 5.01 p 47.

[142]  Exhibit 5.01 p 48.

[143]  Exhibit 6.02 p 2.

[144]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 15-6.

[145]  Exhibit 3.04 pp 4-5.

[146]  Exhibit 3.01 p 15.

[147]  Exhibit 3.01 p 15.

[148]  Exhibit 3.01 p 15.

[149]  Exhibit 3.01 p 15.

[150]  See paragraphs [152][154] above and Exhibit 5.01 p 41.

[151]  Exhibit 5.01 p 58.

[152]  Exhibit 5.01 p 58.

[153]  Exhibit 5.01 p 58.

[154]  Exhibit 5.01 p 58.

[155]  Exhibit 5.01 pp 58-60.

[156]  Exhibit 5.01 p 61.

[157]  Exhibit 6.02 p 2.

[158]  Exhibit 1.07.

[159]  Exhibit 3.01 p 17.

[160]  Exhibit 3.03 p 6.

[161]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 65.

[162]  Exhibit 3.05 pp 7-8.

[163]  Exhibit 3.05 p 8.

[164]  Exhibit 3.05 p 8.

[165]  Transcript of Proceedings, Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council (Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, 518/21, Kefford DCJ, 28 March 2022) 50-2.

[166]  Exhibit 3.06.

[167]  Exhibit 3.07.

[168]  Exhibit 3.08.

[169]  Exhibit 3.06 p 1.

[170]  Exhibit 3.06 pp 1-2.

[171]  Exhibit 3.06 p 2.

[172]  Exhibit 3.06 p 2.

[173]  Exhibit 3.07 p 1.

[174]  Exhibit 3.07 p 1.

[175]  Exhibit 3.07 p 1.

[176]  Exhibit 3.07 p 2.

[177]  Exhibit 3.07 p 2.

[178]  Exhibit 3.08 p 1.

[179]  Exhibit 3.09 p 1.

[180]  Exhibit 3.08.

[181]  Exhibit 1.07 p 2.

[182]  Exhibit 1.01 pp 76-149.

[183]  See, for example, Exhibit 1.07 p 79.

[184]  Exhibit 3.01 p 79.

[185]  See, for example, Exhibit 1.07 pp 79, 95, 101, 103, 115, 122, 126, and 146.

[186]  See, for example, Exhibit 1.07 pp 100 and 149.

[187]  Exhibit 3.01 p 16.

[188]  Exhibit 3.01 p 16.

[189]  Exhibit 3.01 p 16.

[190]  Exhibit 3.01 p 16.

[191]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 16-7.

[192]  Exhibit 3.02 p 7.

[193]  Exhibit 3.02 p 7.

[194]  Exhibit 3.02 p 7.

[195]  Exhibit 3.02 p 7.

[196]  Exhibit 3.01 pp 17.

[197]  Exhibit 3.01 p 17.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council

  • MNC:

    [2022] QPEC 42

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Kefford DCJ

  • Date:

    28 Oct 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Golden Sphere International Inc (1998) 83 FCR 424
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1998) 83 FCR 424
Currie v Dempsey (1967) 2 NSWR 532
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1967) 2 NSWR 532
Cite 2 - (1967) 2 NSWR 532
Enco Precast Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2022] QCA 94
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCA 94
Cite 2 - [2022] QCA 94
Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd v Qld Heritage Council [2012] QPELR 422
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QPELR 422
Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd v Queensland Heritage Council [2012] QPEC 9
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QPEC 9
Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd v Queensland Heritage Council (2012) 191 LGERA 6
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2012) 191 LGERA 6
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation Ltd [1942] AC 154
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1942] AC 154
The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No 2) [2017] QPEC 14
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QPEC 14
Cite 2 - [2017] QPEC 14
Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No 2) [2017] QPELR 391
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QPELR 391
Cite 2 - [2017] QPELR 391
Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No. 2) (2017) 226 LGERA 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) 226 LGERA 1
Cite 2 - (2017) 226 LGERA 1
Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1955) 91 CLR 512
Cite 2 - (1955) 91 CLR 512
Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) HCA 19
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1955) HCA 19
Cite 2 - (1955) HCA 19
Wallaby Grip Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2010) 240 CLR 444
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2010) 240 CLR 444
Wallaby Grip Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2010] HCA 9
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] HCA 9
White v Johnston (2015) 87 NSWLR 779
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2015) 87 NSWLR 779

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 402 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.