CITATION: | The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40 |
PARTIES: | THE UNITING CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA PROPERTY TRUST (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 (Appellant) v QUEENSLAND HERITAGE COUNCIL (Respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | 2024/21 |
DIVISION: | Planning and Environment Court |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against entry in the Queensland Heritage Register |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Planning and Environment Court of Queensland, Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 17 October 2023 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 22 June 2022 to 24 June 2022 |
JUDGE: | McDonnell DCJ |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – Appeal against entry of building in State Heritage Register – where the basis of entry in the Register was criterion (a) and criterion (e) – whether the former church building is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history – whether the former church building is important because of its aesthetic significance – whether the former church building should be entered in the Register |
CASES: | Clissold v Perry (1904) 1 CLR 363 Currie v Dempsey [1967] 2 NSWLR Downs Regional Council v Homeworthy Inspection Services (as agents for Robert and Cheryl Newman) [2021] QPELR 1085 Enco Precast Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors [2022] QCA 94 Gladstone Ports Corporation v Queensland Heritage Council (2012) 191 LGERA 6 Goldicott House Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors (2020) QPELR 1153 Green v Victorian Workcover Authority [1997] 1 VR 364 [380] Highgate Partners Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2021] QPELR 112 Hungtat Worldwide Pty Ltd v Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2018) QPELR 162 ISPT Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Anor (2017) QPELR 1117 JL Smallcombe as Trustee for the Cotton Tree Trust v Queensland Heritage Council [2010] QPELR 68 Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation [1942] AC 154 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (as Home Owner’s Warranty) (2019) 241 CLR 390 Lonie v Brisbane City Council & Ors (Lonie) [1998] QPELR 206. Oakley v Chief Executive Administering Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 [2015] QPELR 157 Queensland Heritage Council v The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville [2015] 1 Qd R 146 Reelaw v Queensland Heritage Council [2005] QPELR 335 Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council [2022] QPEC 42 The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No. 2) (2017) QPELR 391 |
LEGISLATION: | Planning Act 2016 (Qld) Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), s 43, s 45, s 46, s 47 Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld), s 2(1), s 2(2), s 35(2), s 161(1), s 162 |
COUNSEL: | M Batty and J Bowness for the Appellant R Litster QC and W McIntosh for the Respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Thynne & Macartney for the Appellant Crown Solicitor for the Respondent |
Introduction
Background to the appeal
The Ashgrove Methodist Church (former) (1962) is important in demonstrating the growth and expansion of the Methodist Church and the evolution of church architecture in the post-World War II (WWII) period in Queensland. Through its ecclesiastical architectural form, it is a representative example of a suburban Methodist Church of this period, illustrating the post-war mission of the Church to become more relevant to modern society, and its progressive building program in the 1950s and early 1960s.[2]
The Ashgrove Methodist Church (former) has aesthetic importance for its expressive attributes and architectural qualities. Through its siting, distinctive tapered A-frame form, main front elevation with large, coloured glass cross, and features of its modernist architectural style including its metal framed windows, face brick walls with extruded brick pattern, and green tiled roof, the place expresses the optimism, renewal and relevance of the Methodist Church at the time.[3]
What is the legislative framework?
“An appeal by a person mentioned in s 161(1)(a) or (b) may only be made on the grounds that the place the subject of the appeal does or does not satisfy at least one of the cultural heritage criteria.”
What are the issues to be determined in the appeal?
“1. Whether the former Ashgrove Methodist Church at 24 – 30 Ashgrove Avenue, Ashgrove (the church) is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history: s 35(1)(a) Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld).
“(1) An appeal by a person mentioned in s 161(1)(a) or (b) may only be made on the ground that the place the subject of the appeal does or does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria”.
[35] When one approaches the issue here, the proper resolution of the potential conflict between the two statutes – looking at the provisions as a whole and seeking to give them harmonious goals – leads to the conclusion that a ground of appeal asserting the place the subject of the appeal did not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria referred to in s 162(1) of the Queensland Heritage Act must be made out in order for it to be open to the Planning and Environment Court to exercise any powers under s 496(1) or s 496(2) of the Sustainable Planning Act.
[36] If such a ground of appeal is made out, however, it then seems to be appropriate to permit the court, in exercising its powers, to hear the matter anew pursuant to s 495(1) and, for example, to set aside the decision appealed against and make a decision replacing it under s 496(2)(c), to examine the issues which the Council itself had to examine under s 51(3) of the Queensland Heritage Act…
[37] The success of a ground of appeal may throw quite a different light on the particular issues related to the physical condition or structural integrity of the place justifying the Council, were it considering the matter anew, in reaching a different decision. If it is the case that error can be shown in the Council’s assessment of the cultural heritage criteria relevant to the place then that is also likely to throw doubt on the decision generally, justifying a reconsideration of the issues, including those related to physical condition or structural integrity.
[38] It would be wrong to preclude a litigant from arguing that the court should make a decision replacing the decision set aside without reference to all the issues actually considered by the Council itself. Where it is not clear even that the matter may be remitted to the Council to make its decision according to law because of the contrasting powers provided by s 496(2) and s 496(4) that view is more compelling. Accordingly the better view is that a broad view should be given to those grants of power to permit such issues related to physical condition or structural integrity of the place to be litigated if one of the statutory grounds of appeal is made out.
“Grounds for appeal”
An appeal by a person mentioned in section 161(1)(a) or (b) may only be made on the ground that the place the subject of the appeal does or does not satisfy at least 1 of the cultural heritage criteria.”
Who bears the onus of proof?
In either of those two types of appeal, the QHA applies the PECA, Part 5, Division 1 “with any changes the Planning and Environment Court considers appropriate …as if the appeal were a Planning Act appeal…”. Thus ss 45, 46 and 47 of the PECA are called up as applicable to QHA appeals.
The Appellant said that s 45 specifically provides for the onus of proof to be shifted to parties other than the appellant in a Planning Act appeal. In support of its position that there is an ascertainable legislative intent that the party seeking to disturb the status quo (in particular with respect to the exercise of private property rights) bears the onus of proof in planning appeals, it said:
It said this interpretation of s 45 is supported by the reasoning of Rackemann DCJ in Oakley v Chief Executive Administering Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995[20] where his Honour said, in respect of an appeal under an act which was not specifically referred to in the equivalent of s 45 PECA:
“While it is the person who is dissatisfied with the decision to give the notice who brings the appeal, it does not necessarily follow that that person bears the onus. In conducting a de novo hearing, the court will be concerned about whether a notice ought issue. That notice disturbs the pre-existing status quo, by requiring the recipient to comply with a notice. Failure to do so is punishable by a maximum of 3,000 penalty units.
Prior to the issue of the notice it was for the chief executive to determine whether such a notice should issue. Such a notice ought not have issued unless the chief executive was satisfied that it was appropriate in the circumstances. Similarly, the court, on a de novo hearing, ought not dismiss the appeal unless it is so satisfied. In such circumstances the onus properly falls upon the respondent.” (footnotes omitted).
s 164 Court process for appeal
The Planning Act, Chapter 7, Part 1, Division 13, with any changes the Planning and Environment Court considers appropriate, applies to an appeal under this part.
s 164 Court process for appeal
The Planning and Environment Court Act 2016, Part 5, Division 1, with any changes the Planning and Environment Court considers appropriate, applies to an appeal under this part as if the appeal were a Planning Act appeal under that Act.
“In considering this matter it is necessary to bear in mind that it is a general rule to be followed in construction of Statutes such as that with which we are now dealing, that they are not intended to be construed as interfering with vested interests unless that intention is manifest”.[29] (Emphasis added).
The QHC submitted that the manifest intention of the QHA, identified in s 2, is to provide for the conservation of places satisfying one or more of the criteria set out in s 35, for the benefit of the community and future generations;
“[18] In general, it is the rule that the party who asserts a conclusion must prove the facts that lead to that conclusion.[34] 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’.”
Should the Statement of Significance be the primary focus in determining the significance of the place?
“The appeal is by way of hearing anew…The decision of the Council does not mandate or fetter the discretion of the Court…. Nor am I bound by the language of the criteria (in the Statements of Significance) relied on by the Council for the listing of the Convent in the Register. I am informed by the evidence of the witnesses in the appeal and my determination is based on the evidence, including the documents tendered in the appeal hearing, to the extent that they (sic) informative and relevant.”[38]
What is the role of the Guideline?
“provides a methodology for identifying and assessing places eligible for entry in the Queensland Heritage Register as State heritage places…is intended to aid heritage professionals and others interested in the conservation of Queensland’s cultural heritage” and
“It is anticipated that the application of the interpretations and methodology explored in this guide will…provide clarity when places are under appeal regarding entry in or removal from the Register, on how assessments of cultural heritage significance are made”.[45]
“The assessment of cultural heritage significance of a place is informed by the Guideline… The Guidelines sets out the “method for determining state cultural heritage significance”. Whilst the Guideline was not in force at the time of decision by the Council…it should be given some weight. The witnesses have referred to it. Counsel have referred to it. Nevertheless, I accept that it is the words of the Act, of course, that inform my approach to the issues in the appeal.”
“There is no stated legislative requirement to consider these matters. They are also not an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might be relevant to the determination of whether something is substantially different development. Nevertheless, applying a purposive approach to the reading of the planning legislation, I accept that it is appropriate to have regard to them.”
What does the Guideline provide?
Application of the significance indicators qualified by the threshold indicators then determines whether the place is “important in demonstrating”.[48]
“a place may possess historical significance that is not demonstrable in the fabric, if the place is the site of an important historical event, or because it is associated with events, processes, groups and individuals of importance in the evolution of our society or our environment.
…
Assessing historical significance is the process of identifying those aspects of the history of a place and its contextual history (geographic, social, economic, political, scientific, architectural, technological, aesthetic or other context) that are important in helping us to understand how the past has shaped the present. The historical significance of a place can be determined only when the historical context is understood.”[53]
Criterion (a)
“A place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history if that place is the product of, or is an example of, or is influenced by, or has influenced, or is associated with, or has a symbolic association with, or is the site of an event, phase, movement, process, activity or way of life (including values, aspirations, tastes and fashions) which has made a strong, noticeable or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development of our society or of our environment.”[54]
Criterion (e)
“A place is important because of its aesthetic significance if that place exhibits sensual qualities that can be judged against various ideals including beauty, picturesqueness, evocativeness, expressiveness, landmark presence, streetscape contribution, symbolism or some other quality of nature or human endeavour, to be of significance.”[59]
What does “important” mean?
1. Of much significance or consequence: “an important event”.
2. Of more than ordinary title to consideration or notice: “an important example”.
The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary 2004 (Fourth Edition) definition of “important” is “of great effect or consequence; momentous.”
What are the rulings on the objections to evidence?
What is the relevant history?
“3.3 Urban development of Ashgrove began in the 1880s when a residential estate called ‘The Grove’ was surveyed. It became an upmarket suburb through the late 19th century. The first Methodist Sunday School opened in a private home in the suburb in 1889. Methodist Church services in Ashgrove were held in a tent that was pitched opposite the current church site from 1891.
3.4 This same year (1891) the Methodist congregation of The Grove bought a small timber building (the former Wesleyan Methodist Church in Red Hill), which was relocated from Red Hill to a site in Harry Street, Ashgrove, on land the congregation had recently acquired. This was the first church in Ashgrove. Additions were made to The Grove Estate Church in 1904. In 1918 this church was relocated to the current Ashgrove Avenue site, which the congregation bought that same year.
3.5 After World War I the suburban tram network was extended to Ashgrove. The suburb grew considerably in the 1920s, with its population increasing from 1,725 persons to 4,482 over the decade. Much of this growth occurred to the west of the intersection of Ashgrove Avenue and Waterworks Road and away from the existing church.
3.6 The Grove Estate Church was initially part of the Ithaca Methodist Circuit. With the growth of the congregation into the 1920s, a separate Ashgrove Methodist Circuit was established within the church organisation. The Ashgrove Methodists constructed a church hall at West Ashgrove in 1931 to serve that part of the community where much of the growth of the suburb had occurred.
3.7 In 1934 the main Ashgrove church was given a large extension to the rear, which later became the existing church hall. With the population of Ashgrove increasing in the post-war era, plans for new, larger Methodist churches in Ashgrove were being discussed in the 1950s. Building funds had been established for new churches for both Ashgrove and West Ashgrove. While the Ashgrove Methodist Church was much older than West Ashgrove, the West Ashgrove Methodist Church was much smaller and the strong growth of its congregation meant that it had a greater need. Therefore, a new brick church was constructed at West Ashgrove in 1953 to a design by the regular Methodist architects Cooke and Kerrison.
3.8 At Ashgrove Methodist, a different architectural firm, Cross and Bain were commissioned to plan a new church there in 1958. The architect who drew the plans was James Gibson.
3.9 A site for the new church was created by moving the 1934 hall extension to the old church further north, close to Devoy Street, where it became the church hall. The new church was located on the Ashgrove frontage of the site, but the main entrance to the church was within the site and did not face the street. The foundation stone of the new church was laid in October 1961. Gibson had drawn up an architecturally modernist design, an A-framed structure with a green-tiled roof, with a large glass wall making up the western end. The building was not rectangular in plan, but tapered down to its eastern end. The new church opened in April 1962.
3.10 In 1977 the Methodist Church in Australia amalgamated with the Presbyterian and Congregational churches to become the Uniting Church. Since that time the building operated as the Ashgrove Uniting Church.
3.11 Alterations were made to the church in the 1990s, including removing some of its ecclesiastical features such as the sanctuary and vestry, removing some furniture and adding a stained glass window to the eastern wall.
3.12 Congregation numbers declined, and in 2010 the church closed. It(sic) interior was fitted with partitions and furniture, and it has most recently been used as office space. The hall has been leased since 1980 by the Ashgrove Dance Studio which has more than 180 students enrolled for its activities.”[72]
“…an A- frame building standing with its long sides parallel to Ashgrove Avenue on the highest part of the site. It is single storey and its roof has a sloping ridgeline, taller and wider at its front (south west gable end), where the church’s main entrance is. The steeply-pitched main roof is clad in green-coloured cement tiles with eaves extending low to the ground on both sides. The shape is formed by metal portal frames, which extend from below the eaves clear of the exterior walls and meet the ground on concrete footings. Both gable ends of the building have face brick walls and are glazed, with the front featuring a coloured glass cross pattern. The side walls on the south east are face brick, the north west walls are clad in timber vertically jointed (VJ) boards and the sub-floor is enclosed by hit-and-miss concrete blocks.
A wide concrete path leads from Ashgrove Avenue through gardens to the main entrance of the church. The entry vestibule retains original tiled floors and a brick wall with decorative openings into the nave. The nave is a very tall space with raked ceilings and exposed A-frame portal frames. Its width and height diminish toward the sanctuary at the far (north eastern) end. Original metal-framed windows run almost the entire length of the nave and form a sanctuary on both sides. Projecting from the roof on the norther-eastern side is the choir stall, a box-like room open to the nave near the sanctuary.
In 2021, the Church is used as an office building. The original layout of the Church was reorganised in the 1990s and again when it was converted to offices in the 2010s. The entry vestibule has been partitioned to create a toilet and the original doors and windows removed or replaced. An office structure has been inserted in the centre of the nave. The original sanctuary plinth and partition between the sanctuary and vestry have been replaced further to the rear of the church, creating a large nave. (c. 1990s, re-using original timber doors in new locations). A kitchenette and partition have been added to the former vestry to form a lunch-room and separate plant and equipment room. Part of the vestry’s rear wall has been demolished and a lean-to extension added to accommodate storage and a rear entrance.”[74]
Does the Church satisfy Criterion (a) of s 35(1) of the QHA?
Does the Church satisfy the Criterion (e) of s 35(1) of the QHA?
“[169] Lonie v BCC [1998] QPELR 209 involved an appeal against a local authority decision to refuse an application for demolition of a ‘worker’s cottage’ built between about 1910 and 1915. It was not a heritage case per se. Skoien SJ DC was persuaded that the building was as thus described and had been “adapted to the needs of 1950’s or 1960’s owner”. His Honour in the judgment equated ‘significance’ with ‘importance’. However, the case is better known for the passage about the perception of a building or streetscape by an average observer on the street that ‘falls somewhere between that of a PhD in Architectural History on the one hand and that of a Philistine on the other.
[170] Mr Litster submitted that this was not the appropriate test. The test was not that of ‘the ordinary man in the street’ but was of an ‘informed council’ in whose shoes the Court stands in this appeal. I agree. Loni is distinguishable on that basis.”[108]
“Ashgrove Methodist Church embodies the formal qualities of symmetry, cohesion, completion and a degree of unity of scale, form, materials and texture. The building has a limited palette for forms being an A Frame roof form, low side walls and two glazed ends. The side walls are diminished in their role due to the predominance of the roof, reducing the articulation of forms predominantly to the roof and the two end glazed walls…
The building also has a limited palette of materials, with a concrete tiled roof, glazed curtain walls and brickwork at the entrance canopy and lower part of the southern end wall. The lower part of the northern end is comprised of unattractive air-conditioning ducts, a metal clad wall and metal clad shed attached to the church building.
The formal qualities of the building itself are compromised by the poor quality of its surrounds. The front entry metal fence and gates at the Ashgrove Street entry, the metal southern side fence with the Presbytery office and the concrete footpath at the main Church entry are poor quality materials. The elevated metal walkway from the Church Hall to the Church building visually cuts across the southern façade, impeding views to the main entry façade.”[119]
“as a public building in the townscape its poor relationship to surrounding streets would not support the idea that Evocative Qualities are a significant indicator of heritage values.[124]
“The Ashgrove Church does not exhibit sufficient expressive attributes and architectural quality to achieve the threshold for listing on the Queensland Heritage Register.”[151]
“located on a prominent Brisbane suburban ridgeline and adopting an expressive modern A Frame form The Grove is a Landmark. Its landmark quality is one of its greatest assets and enables us to still recognise its former use as a Methodist place of worship.”[152]
Conclusion
Schedule A – Rulings on Objections to Evidence
Number | Evidence objected to | Objection | Response/Submissions | Ruling | ||
1 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.16] (Part paragraph) “It is almost redundant to note that religious observance and church-going have been an important part of Australian (and Queensland) society since the beginning of European settlement… Many churches were built in the cities, towns, and suburbs around Australia of these denominations, and even the smallest villages and settlements in country areas had a church or two – a Catholic and a Protestant. The reach and presence of the ‘church of whatever denomination was great, and extended to all parts of the country.” | (A) No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [122], [124] to the extent that the Court was to consider aspects of Mr Richards’ evidence (which was necessarily prepared without lawyers’ input) does not strictly comply with the rules of evidence, the Court can order that the rules of evidence do not apply to proving these facts when the Court considers that those facts are not seriously in dispute despite the importance of those facts. It is unclear but we proceed on the basis that the entirety of paragraph [5.16] is opposed. Otherwise these matters are plainly within Mr Richards’ experience as identified. In any event, the majority of paragraph [5.16] is referenced by footnote 1. The balance of these paragraphs are hardly a matter seriously in dispute. | I accept this is Mr Richards opinion based upon the referenced facts in the paragraph. Objection dismissed. | ||
2 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.17] (Part paragraph) “In my opinion, this omnipresence of the church of the church in Australia as an institution easily translates into a dominance of churches in the built form and townscape of the cities, towns, suburbs, villages and settlements of Australia. As churches were built form the earliest days of European settlement in Australia, churches are well represented in heritage registers across the count.” | (A) No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [122], [124] The sentences are plainly a matter within experience and in any event is sourced, relevant to Queensland, in footnote 2. | Objection dismissed. | ||
3 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.17] (Part paragraph) “The ubiquity of churches has meant that this building typology has been a constat source of work for architects for many years, and in my opinion, a typology where the practice of architecture can be fully expressed.” | (A) Opinion – outside nominated area of expertise | Respondents Submissions [124] The last sentence of [5.17] is not pressed. | Sentence not pressed by QHC [124(c)]. No ruling required. | ||
4 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.18] (whole paragraph) “Most of these churches entered in the QHR were constructed in the nineteenth century or early to mid-twentieth. Indeed the Additional Notes prepared by Blake as part of his further presentations for the registration process of this place indicates that nearly all churches entered in the QHR were constructed before 1944. Blake found that only five post-war churches built after 1945 (excluding the current building) were entered in the QHR, and only one of those was constructed after 1960” | (A) Hearsay | Respondents Submissions [124] The first sentence of [5.18] is founded on the researched reference in footnote 2. The references to Blake are to facts said by Mr Richards to be very easy to identify, which he did. (see T2-40 [l9-12]) | Mr Richards analysed the evidence himself. Objection dismissed. | ||
5 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.20] (whole paragraph) “Blake has also analysed the denominations of these churches entered in the QHR in the Additional Notes. Anglican churches dominate the entries and indeed the Anglican and Catholic churches combined represent 70% of the churches entered in the QHR. A mere 7% of the churches entered in the QHR are Methodist churches (and 11% Presbyterian churches).” | (A) Hearsay | Respondents Submissions [124] The first sentence of [5.18] is founded on the researched reference in footnote 2. The references to Blake are to facts said by Mr Richards to be very easy to identify, which he did. As above | Mr Richards analysed the evidence himself. Objection dismissed. | ||
6 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.22] (whole paragraph) “While the church and religion had a strong influence in social and indeed political life in Australia for many years, this influence has waned considerably since the 1960s and 1970s. There is a myriad of reasons for this which relate to the major and irrevocable changes in society in the later 1960s, in terms of morality, independence of thought, changing legislation, the Vietnam War, changes in gender roles and the like. The combined percentage of the three churches that created the Uniting Church (in 1977) was 19.4 per cent in 1966. The Uniting Church has not grown since its inception in 1977 – it fell from a peak of 8.2 per cent of the Australian population in 1991 to 7.5 per cent in 1996 according to census figures, or 11.2 per cent of the population in 1996 when the Presbyterians were added to this mix.” | (A) No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [122], [124] It is unclear but we proceed on the basis that the entirety of paragraph [5.16] is opposed. Otherwise these matters are plainly within Mr Richards’ experience as identified. In any event, the majority of paragraph [5.16] is referenced by footnote 1. The balance of these paragraphs are hardly a matter seriously in dispute. | I dismiss the objection on the basis that these matters are within Mr Richards’ expertise and the source of the statistics is stated. | ||
7 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.24] (Part paragraph) “In his nomination report of Feburary 2021 the growth of the Asgrove Methodist congregation isnoted – a 40% increase from 1950 to 1960. Blake also quotes an article by David Hilliard about religion in Brisbane in the 1950s that states Methodist membership in Brisbaen grew by 25% from 1955 to 1960… The growth in the Methodist Church, as one of the major denominations in the state, grew considerably in this post-war period of the 1950s and 1960s as did the Presbyterians, the Catholics and the Anglicans (or Church of England). This growth in church +congregations across the four major denominations in Queensland in the 1950s and 1960s was demonstrated in the construction of new churches for these denominations in this period, as Blake attests in the nomination report. I agree with these observations.” | (A) Hearsay | Respondents Submissions [124] Reliance on Hilliard, as referenced by Dr Blake, involves reference to a primary source. The reference is subsidiary to analysis of Census figures in [5.23] which also supports the second aspect of [5.24] that is challenged. | Mr Richards refers to a primary source Objection dismissed. | ||
8 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.24] (Part paragraph) “Clearly the growth of the Methodist Church congregation in Ashgrove in the post war period was matched by that of Brisbane, and indeed across the whole State of Queensland.” | (A) No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [124] Reliance on Hilliard, as referenced by Dr Blake, involves reference to a primary source. The reference is subsidiary to analysis of Census figures in [5.23] which also supports the second aspect of [5.24] that is challenged. | The evidence follows from the earlier analysis of the Census figures. The objection is dismissed. | ||
9 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.26]-[5.28] (whole paragraphs) “5.26 Further, Blake again quotes the article by Hilliard about the growth of the Methodist Church in Brisbane in this period and how this generated a feeling of optimism and confidence which translated into an identifiable building program: By the late 1950s the atmosphere in church circles was buoyant. With increased incomes, big building programmes were in full swing—new churches, new houses for ministers, church halls for new housing areas. In established suburbs a large number of spacious brick churches were designed in modern style, to replace small and often shabby wooden buildings. 5.27 Based on the above documentary evidence and observations it follows then, as Blake has noted in his nomination report, that Brisbane (and by extension Queensland) experienced a , sharp increase in church construction in 1950s and early 1960s. Blake notes that between 1950 and 1962 a total of 117 churches were constructed in the city in this period. Blake also notes that these churches were built predominantly by the four main denominations – the Methodist Church constructed 26, the Catholic Church constructed 22, the Anglicans 21 and the Presbyterians 14. While I have not sited this research and cannot confirm these numbers I am confident that this research is sound and agree with the observations made in this regard. 5.28 Blake has also analysed the numbers and locations of Methodist churches constructed in the post war period from 1950 to 1965. A total of 97 churches were constructed by Queensland Methodists in this period – many were small timber buildings in the country, while some were larger brick churches in the Brisbane suburbs and the major towns in the state. These were still largely traditional in design and appearance. Very few were modernist designs like the former Ashgrove Methodist.” | (A) Hearsay | Respondents Submissions [124] The material in [5.26] was interrogated in cross-examination and is supported. The opinion in the first sentence of [5.27] relies on material otherwise identified that the facts identified as reference to Dr Bake is not pressed in paragraph [5.27] & [5.28] | Mr Richards was cross-examined on paragraph [5.26], The first sentence in [5.27] follows from the earlier material. I allow the evidence other than the facts identified as referable to Dr Blake which were not pressed by QHC. The Frist sentence in [5.27] follows from the earlier material. | ||
10 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.30] (Part paragraph) It would appear the design of the church was determined between the architect (Jim Gibson) and the local parish or the Ashgrove congregation, to arrive at an impressive design for this Brisbane suburban church in isolation of these other modernist designs in regional Queensland.” | (A) Opinion – outside nominated area of expertise. No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [124] The facts are not seriously in dispute and are demonstrated in other evidence. | Objection allowed on the basis that this is outside Mr Richards nominated area of expertise. | ||
11 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.33] (Part paragraph) It would appear that the Ashgrove Methodist Church congregation was seeking something different for their curch – a more modern design that would make a different statement to the congregation and the wider suburb.” | (A) No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [124] The acceptance of these statements is common to both historians. The words “as demonstrated by Blake” are not relied on. The balance of [5.33] is not seriously in dispute or is demonstrated in other evidence. See Ex 2.08 p 11-13, T2-86 l29 & T2-87 l12, Ex 2.16, Ex 3.01, App F p 80-82 | Mr Richards opinion is based upon the facts contained in the paragraph. The objection is dismissed. | ||
12 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.33] (whole paragraph) “SR accepts the statements made in the register entry that the Ashgrove Methodist congregation began discussing a new church in 1958.16 It is telling that the congregation did not commission the firm of Cook and Kerrison, who had been the longstanding Methodist architects since the late 1930s and had designed a large number of Methodist churches including those nearby at West Ashgrove (1953), Rainworth (1955), Bardon (1958) and The Gap (1960). As has been demonstrated by Blake, Cook and Kerrison’s churches were fairly conservative in their design for the period. It would appear that the Ashgrove Methodist Church congregation was seeking something different for their church – a more modern design that would make a different statement to the congregation and the wider suburb. They commissioned the firm Cross and Bain, and specifically an architect in that firm James Gibson, to design their new church.” | (A) Hearsay | Respondents Submissions [124] The acceptance of these statements is common to both historians. The words “as demonstrated by Blake” are not relied on. The balance of [5.33] is not seriously in dispute or is demonstrated in other evidence. | This is Mr Richards’ opinion. Objection dismissed. | ||
13 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.34] (Part paragraph) The brief to the architect was to take into the account the retained and relocated hall building on the site, deal with the restricted size of the site, and provide a new church that would mean less traffic noise internally for the congregation. ...Between them, as architect and client, a design for a new church was prepared and delivered that was modern, different… | (A) No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [124] The paragraph is not seriously in dispute and demonstrated in other evidence. To the extent that the paragraph is founded in footnotes, the objection is not made good. | No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis. Objection allowed. | ||
14 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.35] (Part paragraph) “Nowhere is the evolution, or the cleave in church design, from the more traditional to the modern, in the few short years in the latter half of the 1950s better expressed than the Ashgrove Methodist congregation itself.” | (A) Opinion – outside nominated area of expertise | Respondents Submissions [124] The first sentence of [5.35] is not pressed. | Ruling not required. | ||
15 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.38] (Part paragraph) “…it was clearly at the forefront of modernist design for churches in this period, and was one church among other contemporaries demonstrating these stylistic traits and modern forms.” | (A) No demonstrated factual or intellectual basis | Respondents Submissions [124] [5.38] is an opinion based on facts otherwise proved or accepted However QHC did not press this paragraph. | Paragraph not pressed. Ruling not required. | ||
16 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.38]-[5.43] (whole paragraphs) | Opinion – outside nominated area of expertise | Paragraphs not pressed | Ruling not required. | ||
17 | Historian Joint Expert Report [5.47]-[5.70] (whole paragraphs) | Irrelevant. Opinion – outside nominated area of expertise | Paragraphs not pressed | Conclusion about criterion (d) & criterion (f) are not pressed. Ruling not required. | ||
18 | Historian Joint Expert Report [6.2] (Part paragraph) “SR also considers that the former Ashgrove Methodist Church satisfies criteria d) and f) of section 35 (1) of the Queensland Hertiage Act 1992.” | (A) Irrelevant | Respondents Submissions [124] The discussion and conclusion about criterion (d) and criterion (f) are not pressed. | Conclusion about criterion (d) & criterion (f) are not pressed. Ruling not required. | ||
19,20,21 removed– objection withdrawn | ||||||
22 | Statement of Russell Olsson [29]-[37], [40] (whole paragraphs) 29 This individual statement addresses Criterion (a) – The place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland's history. 30 The entry to the Queensland Heritage Register regarding Criterion ( a ) states : The Ashgrove Methodist Church (former) (1960) is important in demonstrating the growth and expansion of the Methodist Church and the evolution of church architecture in the post-World War II (WWII) period in Queensland. Through its modernist ecclesiastical architectural form, it is a representative example of a suburban Methodist church of this period, illustrating the post-war mission of the Church to become more relevant to modern society, and its progressive building program in the 1950s and early 1960s. 31 This building does not demonstrate the growth and expansion of the Methodist Church in Queensland. There were up to 20 Methodist churches and approximately 18 A-Frame churches built in Queensland in the post- World War II period. The built form of the Church is regular, not special or exceptional. 32 The Ashgrove Church was one of the A-Frame Methodist churches from the period, which included Holland Park Methodist (1962), Southport Methodist (1964), Lindum Methodist (1963) and Beachmere Methodist (1969). A-Frame churches of other denominations in the same period are Mt Isa Presbyterian (1960), St Peters Catholic Church, Halifax (1960), Indooropilly Presbyterian (1960), St Andrews Presbyterian Memorial Church, Innisfail (1961), Immanuel Lutheran Maroochydore (1962), Stuartholme Catholic Girls School Chapel, Toowong (1961), Lindum Methodist (1963), Holy Cross Catholic Church (1964), Our Lady of Mt Carmel Catholic, Coorparoo (1962), St Alban’s Church of England, Yarrabah (1961), St Johns Lutheran Toowoomba (1964), StPeter’s Lutheran, Petrie (1965), Trinity Lutheran, Chinchilla (1969) and Deagon Seventh Day Adventist (1969). 33 The above list of 18 A-Frame Churches were built between 1960 and 1969, which is, in the history of Queensland, a short period of time. Eighteen churches in 9 years is, on average, 2 churches per year. The Ashgrove Church is one church among many A-Frame churches demonstrating that the Ashgrove Church is not exceptional as an A-Frame church. 34 To meet the requirements of Criterion (a) the Ashgrove Church must be “important in demonstrating the growth and expansion of the Methodist Church and the evolution of Church architecture in the Post WWII period in Queensland”. This Church does not achieve this requirement. A number of these churches had similar architectural features. At least 5 churches had visible ground level external buttresses, such as Our Lady of Mt Carmel Catholic Coorparoo, Mt Isa Presbyterian, Holy Cross Catholic Church, Eton, St Albans Church of England, Yarrabah and Deagon Seventh Day Adventist Church. At least 9 churches had glazed end walls, often with decorative glass, such as Southport Methodist, Mt Isa Presbyterian, St Peters Catholic Church, Halifax, St Andrews Presbyterian Memorial Church, Innisfail, Lindum Methodist Church, Holy Cross Catholic Church, Eton, Our Lady of Mt Carmel Catholic, Coorparoo, St Johns Lutheran, Toowoomba and St Peters Lutheran, Petrie. Given that the A-Frame roof form, the exposed external ground level buttresses and decorative, glazed end walls comprise almost all the external appearance of the Ashgrove Church, the number of other churches exhibiting these characteristics demonstrates that Ashgrove Church is one of many and is not important or exceptional within this church typology. The only characteristic of the Ashgrove Church that could be considered different is the fan shaped plan and gently sloping roof ridge, however fan shaped plan forms had existed at least since the First Church of Christ Scientist, North Quay (1938). The Katamatite Church, Victoria, has a sloping roof ridge. Whilst a sloping roof ridge is less common than many of the other characteristics in the A-Frame church typology, it is not sufficient in itself to place the Ashgrove Church on the Queensland Heritage Register. The Ashgrove Church is one church within a typology of A-Frame Churches. 35 The range of up to 20 Methodist churches in post-WWII Queensland contains churches of more modern style, such as Mareeba Methodist Church (1960), Ashgrove Church (1960), Southport Methodist (1964), Atherton Methodist (1961), Charters Towers Methodist, Atherton Methodist (1961) and Yeronga Methodist (1956). It also includes churches of more traditional style, such as Coorparoo Uniting Church and Hall (1952) and Wilston Methodist Memorial church (1956). Other non-Methodist Churches designed by James Gibson in a more traditional style are St Matthews Holland Park (1957) and Toowong Presbyterian Church (1959). 36 The modernist ecclesiastical architectural form of the Ashgrove Church is one example of a suburban Methodist church of this period, however it is not a representative example, nor is it an example of significance. The Charters Towers and Atherton Methodist churches have octagonal plan forms, the Mareeba Methodist has a square plan form and the Coorparoo Uniting Church and Wilston Methodist Memorial Churches have traditional architectural styles, with small windows in face brick walls and traditional roof forms. The Ashgrove Church is not representative of this diverse range of Methodist church plan forms and styles. It is only one part of the Church’s building program in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which included a range of plan forms and modern and traditional styles. 37 When considering the criteria for inclusion on the Queensland Heritage Register, architectural style is only one consideration. Other considerations are its siting and relationship to the public realm, the design quality of the church grounds and the building’s materials and detailing. For the reasons stated above regarding these other design considerations, the Ashgrove Church is not of sufficient design quality to be placed on the Queensland Heritage Register. Further, the Church also does not warrant inclusion on the Register on the basis of its architectural style. …40 The Ashgrove Church does not achieve the threshold for listing in terms of Criterion (e) or Criterion (a) in my professional opinion as an architect. | (R) Introduces a opinions not addressed in the joint report – does not comply with rule 34(3) of the Planning and Environment Court Rules 2018 (Qld) | 4.10 Appellants Written Submissions [90] “…it is acknowledged that Mr Olsson’s expertise as an architect is primarily relevant to criterion (e). To the extent he deals explicitly with criterion (a) for the first time, those opinions should be taken to be limited to providing architectural historical context. Mr Olsson confirmed in cross-examination that he would defer to Dr Daunt’s historical research on this topic. While satisfaction of criterion (a) was not specifically considered in the joint report, Dr Daunt gave her opinion substantively on the historical significance of the former Ashgrove Methodist Church. To the extent the architectural opinions expressed by Mr Olsson were based on the historical facts asserted by Dr Daunt in the joint report, those matters were matters of disagreement between the parties and appropriately dealt with in a separate report. Whether criterion (a) is satisfied is ultimately a matter for the Court to determine.” | The Respondent objected to paragraphs 29 – 37 and 40 of Exhibit 4.01. Exhibit 4.01 is Mr Olsson’s individual report prepared pursuant to Rule 34(2)(b) of the Planning and Environment Court Rules 2018 (Qld), to deal with any issue of disagreement recorded in the joint report. In these paragraphs Mr Olsson addresses criterion (a). Mr Olsson was nominated as an expert to deal with criterion (e). He acknowledged in cross-examination that he would defer to Dr Daunt’s historical research in relation to the architectural historical context. This evidence strayed outside Mr Olsson’s nominated area of expertise and does not arise out of issues of disagreement in the joint historians’ report and therefore does not comply with Rule 34(3). Accordingly, the objection is allowed in respect of paragraphs 29 – 37 and paragraph 40 to the extent it refers to criterion (a). | ||
23 | Statement of Peter Bell Attachment A (Whole attachment) | (R) Hearsay – author of email not called Irrelevant to the issue in dispute | 4.10 Appellants Written Submissions [90] “The objections to Dr Bell’s statement are made on the basis of hearsay, in that the two documents attached are not sworn to by their creators. As indicated in the Appellant’s opening, the report of Mr McDonald is not relied on for the truth of its contents. Some matters expressed therein were adopted “broadly” by Mr Richards in cross-examination. That is the extent to which it is relied upon. In relation to the email received by representatives of the Appellant from Thom Blake, it does not appear to be alleged that the copy of the email is false or untrue. Such was not put to Dr Bell in cross-examination. In those circumstances, the email is relied on as a document which an historian (upon being made aware that such a document existed) would have pause to consider the biases of their source material. That also appeared to be conceded by Mr Richards in cross-examination. The Document is relevant to the approach of Mr Richards in this matter.” | The Respondent objected to Attachments A and B of Mr Bell’s individual statement. Attachment A is an email from Dr Blake which is objected to on the basis that it is hearsay and irrelevant to the issues in dispute. The Appellant said it is relied upon as a document which would cause an historian aware of the document to pause to consider the basis of their source material. I dismiss the objection and allow Attachment A on the basis for which it is contended by the Appellant. | ||
24 | Statement of Peter Bell Attachment B (Whole attachment) | (R) Hearsay – author not called Note - Part of 2.10 to be admitted on limited basis | Attachment B was objected to as hearsay. It is the report by Mr McDonald for the purposes of submission by the Appellant during the assessment process and so was before the QHC at the time it was considering the application. Some matters expressed in Attachment B were broadly adopted by Mr Richards. It is to that extent that the Appellant’s document is relied upon. I allow the document on that limited basis. | |||
25 | Affidavit of Andrew Gunton [8]-[12] (whole paragraphs)
| (R) Irrelevant to the issue in dispute | 4.10 Appellants Written Submissions [90] “the objections to the affidavit of Reverend Gunton go to the issue of relevance. The document is not tendered for the Court to receive the Reverend’s opinions about architectural or historical matters. However, the Reverend is entitled to give evidence on behalf of the Appellant about its intent for the Land, and how the ideals of the Uniting Church faith are applied in Queensland. At the very least the Affidavit is of relevance to a determination of the discretion to be exercised in the Appeal.” | Paragraphs 8 – 12, 19 – 23, 24 – 26 and 28 – 34 of Reverend Gunton’s evidence are objected to on the basis that they are irrelevant to the issues in dispute. The statement of Reverend Gunton discloses that he is the “spiritual head” and the main spokesperson for the Uniting Church in Queensland. The Appellant in this proceeding is the property holdings arm of the Uniting Church in Queensland. As observed by Durward SC DCJ in The Sisters of Mercy (PEC): “(It) was submitted…that the Sisters, by reason of their special association with the place, should be regarded differently from other owners of the places. However, I do not consider that the Sisters should be treated any differently from any other owner of the place the subject of, or nominated for, heritage listing insofar as the future of the place is concerned in an appeal to this Court. The opinion of any owner of a place is not relevant to the determination of an appeal involving heritage listing. It seems to me that it would be uncommon for an owner to favour a heritage listing, unless the owner was a proponent for the listing.” I agree with this approach. Further, the listing is pursued on the basis that it Is a Methodist church, not a Uniting Church. The opinions of Reverend Gunton are not relevant and I allow the objection. | ||
26 | Affidavit of Andrew Gunton [19]-[23] (whole paragraphs)
| (R) Irrelevant to the issue in dispute | ||||
27 | Affidavit of Andrew Gunton [24] (whole paragraph)
| (R) Speculation – basis not established | ||||
28 | Affidavit of Andrew Gunton [24]-[26] (whole paragraphs)
| (R) Irrelevant to the issue in dispute | ||||
29 | Affidavit of Andrew Gunton [28]-[32] (whole paragraphs)
| (R) Irrelevant to the issue in dispute | ||||
[1]Ex. 2.03 Submission of Australian Institute of Architects, Ex. 2.05 Submission of Jonty Bush MP, Ex. 2.06 Submission of Lynne Parker, Ex. 2.07 Submission of National Trust of Australia (QLD), Ex. 2.08 Submission of Lisa Marie Daunt, Ex. 2.09 Submission of the Ashgrove Historical Society, Ex. 2.10 Submissions of Thynne + Macartney on behalf of The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust.
[2]Ex. 2.16 Entry in the QLD Heritage Register, 2.
[3]Ibid.
[4]T1-20[12]– [12].
[5]T2-60[17] – T2-61[41].
[6]Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) s 161(1)(a) (‘QHA’).
[7]Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld), s 43 (‘PECA’).
[8]PECA, s 47.
[9]QHA, s 35(2).
[10]Ex. 1.02 Order of his Honour Judge Jones, 17 September 2021 [1].
[11]Ex. 4.06 Appellant's Proposed List of Issues in Dispute.
[12][2015] 1 Qd R 146.
[13]Ibid 162, [35]–[37].
[14]QHA, s 162.
[15]Queensland Heritage Council v The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville [2015] 1 Qd R 146, [5].
[16]Ibid [7].
[17]Green v Victorian Workcover Authority [1997] 1 VR 364 [380].
[18]Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (as Home Owner’s Warranty) (2019) 241 CLR 390 [89]; applied by Kefford DCJ in Southern Downs Regional Council v Homeworthy Inspection Services (as agents for Robert and Cheryl Newman) [2021] QPELR 1085.
[19]Clissold v Perry (1904) 1 CLR 363, 373.
[20][2015] QPELR 157, 160.
[21](2012) 191 LGERA 6.
[22](2018) QPELR 162, 174.
[23]Ibid [37].
[24]Written Submissions on behalf of the Appellant dated 24 June 2022, [66].
[25]Gladstone Ports Corporation v Queensland Heritage Council (2012) 191 LGERA 6, [46]–[48].
[26](2017) QPELR 391.
[27]A statement from Cross on Evidence cited approvingly by Chesterman JA in Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence [2010] 1 Qd R 505, [30].
[28](1904) 1 CLR 363.
[29](1904) 1 CLR 363, 373.
[30][2015] QPELR 157.
[31]Ibid 160 [33]-[34].
[32](2018) QPELR 162.
[33][2022] QCA 94.
[34]Ei qui affirmat non et qui negat incumbit probatio. See Currie v Dempsey [1967] 2 NSWLR; Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation [1942] AC 154, 174.
[35](2020) QPELR 1153, 1183-1195.
[36](2017) QPELR 1117, 1130 [74].
[37](2020) QPELR 1153, [116], [126].
[38]The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No. 2) (2017) QPELR 391 [9] (‘Sisters of Mercy (PEC)’).
[39][2022] QPEC 42.
[40]Ibid [185].
[41]Sisters of Mercy (PEC) [153].
[42]Ex. 5.01.
[43]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, (i)
[44]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, [3].
[45]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, [4].
[46]Sisters of Mercy (PEC), [17].
[47][2021] QPELR 112, [13].
[48]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, [9].
[49]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 13.
[50]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 14–15.
[51]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 15.
[52]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 16.
[53]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 17.
[54]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 23.
[55]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 25.
[56]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 26-27.
[57]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 27–29.
[58]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 26–27.
[59]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 49.
[60]Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) sch Dictionary (definition of ‘aesthetic significance’).
[61]Ex. 5.01 Guideline, 49–52.
[62]Ex. 05.01 Guideline, 53–54.
[63]Sisters of Mercy (PEC), [24].
[64]JL Smallcombe as Trustee for the Cotton Tree Trust v Queensland Heritage Council [2010] QPELR 68, [13]–[14].
[65]Reelaw v Queensland Heritage Council [2005] QPELR 335, [109].
[66]QHA, s 2(1), s 2(2)(b).
[67]Sisters of Mercy (PEC), [158].
[68]Sisters of Mercy (PEC), [160].
[69]Sisters of Mercy (PEC), [174].
[70]T3-36, [11]–[12].
[71]Respondent’s’s Written submissions dated 24 June 2022, [124](c), (f), (j) (m).
[72]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, [3.3]-[3.12].
[73]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, [2.2][2.3].
[74]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 3.
[75]Ex. 4.02 Individual Expert report of Peter Bell.
[76]Ex. 2.16 Entry into the Queensland Heritage Register, 6.
[77]T3–17[35] –T3–18[20], T2-47[9]-T2-48[30], T2-50[1]–[10].
[78]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, [3.01].
[79]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER.
[80]Ex. 4.02 Individual Expert Report of Peter Bell.
[81]T1-41[35]–[36].
[82]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, 11, [5.11].
[83]T1-49[8]–[12]; T2-5 [24]-[26].
[84]T2-27[19]–[21] ; Ex. 3.02 Historian JER [5.46].
[85]T2-27[42]; T2-28[6].
[86]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, 3 [1.6].
[87]T2-61[35]–[46].
[88]T2-7[13]; T2-59[7].
[89]T2-61[45] - T2-62[3].
[90]T2-63[8]–[9].
[91]T2-9[9]–[12].
[92]T2-11[7]–[8].
[93]T2–11[7]–[8].
[94]T2–11[3]–[4].
[95]T2-35,[6].
[96]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, [3.38].
[97]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, [5.30].
[98]T2-59[6]-[7].
[99]T2-34, [10]–[12].
[100]Ex. 3.02 Historian JER, [3.3].
[101]T2–11[7]–[8].
[102]T2–34[39]-[41].
[103]Ex. 5.01 Guidelines, 26.
[104]T2-51[37].
[105][1998] QPELR 206.
[106][2010] QPELR 68, [10].
[107][1998] QPELR 206, [212].
[108]Sisters of Mercy (PEC) [169]-[170].
[109]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 4–5.
[110]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, Appendix F.
[111]T3-14[17].
[112]T2-68[1]–[5].
[113]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 71.
[114]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 7.
[115]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 9.
[116]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 32, Fig. 5, Fig. 7.
[117]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 33, Fig. 9
[118]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 35–48.
[119]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 6.
[120]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 8.
[121]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 7.
[122]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 8.
[123]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 51; Ex. 4.02 Individual Expert Report of Peter Bell, 28, Fig. 9.
[124]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 10.
[125]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 12.
[126]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 15.
[127]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 14.
[128]T3 – 24 [32]–[37].
[129]T3 – 25[24]–[25].
[130]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 11.
[131]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 27, [2],[3].
[132]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 49.
[133]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 35-48.
[134]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 10.
[135]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER,16.
[136]Ex. 5.01 Architecture JER, 52.
[137]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER,18.
[138]T2-75[45]–T2-76[2].
[139]T2–80[19]–[20].
[140]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 19.
[141]T3-20[3].
[142]T3-24[46]-T3-25[1].
[143]T2-77[13].
[144]Ex. 03.01 Architecture JER, 20.
[145]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER.
[146]Ex. 4.02, Individual Export Report of Peter Bell, Figs 11, 12 and 13.
[147]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 20.
[148]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 22.
[149]Ex. 6.01 Brisbane church architecture of the 1960s: Creating modern, climatic and regional responses to liturgical change; Ex.6.02 Technologies of Brisbane church architecture in the 1960s; Ex. 6.03 An architecture of complexity and contested value; Ex. 6.07 Pitching Paper - Lisa Daunt; Ex. 6.08 Uneasy heritage: Australia’s modern church buildings are disappearing; Ex. 6.09 Constructing faith: Postwar religious buildings in Australia.
[150]T2-92[5]–[29].
[151]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 28.
[152]Ex. 3.01 Architecture JER, 17.
![The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40](/judgmentview/image?name=360441.001.png&id=360441)
![The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40](/judgmentview/image?name=360441.002.png&id=360441)
![The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40](/judgmentview/image?name=360441.003.png&id=360441)
![The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40](/judgmentview/image?name=360441.004.png&id=360441)
![The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40](/judgmentview/image?name=360441.005.png&id=360441)
![The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40](/judgmentview/image?name=360441.006.png&id=360441)