Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QPEC
  3. 2024
  4. The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council - [2024] QPEC 25

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

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council[2024] QPEC 25

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council[2024] QPEC 25

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council [2024] QPEC 25

PARTIES:

THE UNITING CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA PROPERTY TRUST (Q.) (ABN 25 548 385 225)

(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND HERITAGE COUNCIL

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3249 of 2021

DIVISION:

Planning and Environment

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision to enter a place in the Queensland heritage register

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28, 29 & 30 November 2022

20 & 21 March 2023

JUDGE:

Williamson KC DCJ

ORDER:

  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The respondent’s decision to enter the Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (former), Wilston in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place is set aside.
  3. The Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (former) be removed from the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place.

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – APPEAL – Appeal against a decision to enter a former Methodist church in the Queensland heritage register as a place of State heritage significance – where the respondent contends the place satisfies ss 35(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 – whether the place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history – whether the place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural place – whether the place is important because of its aesthetic significance – whether there are discretionary reasons to not enter the place in the Queensland heritage register in circumstances where it satisfies one or more of ss 35(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

LEGISLATION:

Planning & Environment Court Act 2016, ss 43, 45 and 46

Queensland Heritage Act 1992, ss 31, 35, 43, 44, 48, 51, 53, 161, 162, 164, 173 and Schedule

CASES:

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

Mining and Energy Union & Ors [2022] QCA 94

Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No. 2) [2017] QPELR 391

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40

COUNSEL:

Mr M Batty with Ms J Bowness for the appellant

H L Blattman KC, with P M Zielinski, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Thynne + Macartney for the appellant

Crown Law for the respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    A ‘place’ may be entered in the Queensland heritage register as a ‘State heritage place’ if it satisfies one or more of the cultural heritage criteria stated in s 35(1) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (the QHA). On 12 November 2021, the Heritage council decided to enter the Trinity Grove Uniting Church (the Church) in the Queensland heritage register on the basis it satisfied ss 35(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the QHA. The entry in the Queensland heritage register identifies the Church by reference to a former name, ‘Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (former)’ and includes a statement of significance, which is required by s 31(3)(e) of the QHA. The statement of significance is attached to these reasons and marked Annexure A.
  2. [2]
    This is an appeal against the Heritage council’s decision to enter the Church, by reference to its former name, in the Queensland heritage register. The right of appeal is conferred by s 161 of the QHA. The appeal may only be made on the ground the ‘place’ does not satisfy at least one or more of the cultural heritage criteria, which are identified in s 35(1) of the Act: s 162, QHA. The key issue in dispute is whether the Church satisfies the cultural heritage criteria stated in ss 35(1)(a), (d) and (e). The respondent did not contend that any other criterion in s 35(1) was satisfied to support entry in the register. This is consistent with the reasons given by the Heritage council in support of its decision.
  3. [3]
    The process for the appeal is prescribed by part 5, division 1 of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016 (the Court Act), ‘with any changes the Planning & Environment Court considers appropriate’: s 164 of the QHA. Sections 45 and 46 are contained in part 5, division 1 of the Court Act. The latter should be read as providing for s 43 of the Court Act to have application to this appeal, meaning the appeal proceeds by way of hearing anew. The former should be read as providing for the appellant to bear the onus in the appeal, which is consistent with the common law position. A party who asserts a conclusion must prove the facts that lead to the conclusion: Enco Precast Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime,Mining and Energy Union & Ors [2022] QCA 94, [18] per Sofronoff P, with whom Bond JA and Brown J agreed. Clear words in the QHA would be required to conclude otherwise. In my view, no such intention is manifest, be it express or implied, in the QHA. It is for this reason I agree with the conclusion reached by McDonnell DCJ in The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40 at [35].
  4. [4]
    While the onus sits with the appellant, I accept the submission made by both parties that the outcome of the appeal is not determined by the onus of proof. This is the product of both parties advancing a positive case for, or against, entering the place in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place. The outcome of the appeal turns on the evidence accepted.
  5. [5]
    For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied the appellant’s evidence, which I prefer, demonstrates the place does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria stated in s 35(1) of the QHA. The power to enter the place in the register under s 53(1) of the QHA is not, as a consequence, engaged.

What is the ‘place’ entered in the Queensland heritage register?

  1. [6]
    The Church is located in Wilston on a corner site with three road frontages: Kedron Brook Road, Hawdon Street and Dibley Avenue. The formal entry to the Church faces Hawdon Street, and along with an associated tower, columbarium, hall and toilet block, straddles three contiguous lots: Exhibit 18, pp. 1-3. The lots are formally described as Lot 1 on RP112244 and Lots 55 and 56 on RP19870 (the site).
  2. [7]
    The location of the ‘place’ for the purposes of the appeal is identified on a cadastral plan forming part of Exhibit 18. The plan is Annexure B to these reasons and identifies an amended ‘heritage register boundary’. It includes only part of the site. Structures inside the boundary are designated ‘Significant built features’ or ‘Features not of state significance’. The Church and tower are captured by the former designation (the Place). The columbarium (circa 2000), hall (1913 and 1966) and toilet block (dated 1956) are captured by the latter designation.
  3. [8]
    Mr Olsson and Dr Daunt (Exhibit 5, pp. 74-117) described the Place in their architectural joint report as a particular class, namely a ‘1950s modernist church’. A detailed description of the Place (internal and external) is set out in the joint report as follows:
  1. “31.
    …The church building and tower stands on a raised terrace of land on the western side of the church grounds, with; an adjacent hall and toilet block standing on the eastern side, that are not of state-level cultural significance.
  1. 32.
    It has…a ‘soft’ Modernist style, evident through its asymmetrical massing, refined composition, simple forms and volumes, and use of a restrained materials palette. The church is lowset and comprises a large gable roofed main block containing a nave and sanctuary with two gabled-roofed vestries attached to either side of its rear (south). A tall memorial tower with carillon stands at the northwest corner of the site and is connected to the…lower flat roofed…entrance lobby and side aisle…The main block’s structure comprises concrete-encased steel portal frames, expressed on the exterior face-brick walls by bricks laid at 45 degrees.
  1. 33.
    ...The front entrance lobby features…windows with a wrought-iron metal screen and is accessed via a wide face-brick stair with integrated side garden beds. Timber double doors lead into the wide, narrow lobby, which provides access through to the nave, the tower, and a long side aisle to the nave, which doubles as a corridor through to the rear of the church.
  1. 34.
    The nave is large, open volume with a raked ceiling and exposed portal frames. On its eastern side are banks of tall windows and on its western side is the side aisle, expressed by a lowered flat ceiling. At the southern end of the nave is the sanctuary dais, raised two steps above the nave floor and accommodating a cantilevered pulpit (east) and a choir stall, part recessed into the side aisle. A face brick wall with a pattern of cross-shaped openings provides a decorative screen between the choir stall and the nave. In the sanctuary’s southern wall is a floor-to-ceiling multi-paned window. On either side of the sanctuary is a door into the vestries (minister to the east and choir to the west). An open walkway to the rear (south) of the main block connects the choir and minister vestries…
  1. 35.
    The side aisle opens through the glazed French doors to a western lawn. The lawn slopes toward Kedron-Brook Road and has concrete paths leading from the tower, along the side of the church to the rear of the site.
  1. [9]
    While the experts characterised the architecture of the Place as ‘modernism’, this is a broad descriptor. The architecture is more particularly described as soft modernism. This is a transitional aesthetic, likely inspired by church designs from abroad and interstate. A transitional aesthetic is different to a historical aesthetic, such as Gothic or Romanesque. It is also much softer than the bold and experimental modern designs that emerged in the late 1950s and 1960s (such as the Holy Family Church, Exhibit 14).
  2. [10]
    The respondent contends the design of the Place has influenced various other churches built in Queensland after 1956: Exhibit 17, para 38(d). This contention was advanced in reliance upon the evidence of Dr Daunt. It was her view that the design of the Place influenced new churches constructed by other denominations in the late 1950s and then Methodist churches constructed in the 1960s. She identified a church constructed at Southport as a specific example that had been ‘influenced’ by the Place: T2-86, L23-46. It can be accepted, as a general proposition, that the design of the Place may have influenced later churches for various denominations, including Methodist churches, but the extent to which it did so is far from clear. It is, as a starting point, unclear from the Southport example what influence, if any, can be attributed to the design of the Place. A similar observation can be made in relation to the Methodist churches constructed after April 1956. They are identified in an annexure to the joint report of the architects. I was far from persuaded that a review of this schedule made good Dr Daunt’s point as to the influence of the Place and its design on later designs: Exhibit 5, pp. 118-131.
  3. [11]
    Externally, the Place is substantially intact, with only a few modifications made after 1956. The modifications include the construction of the columbarium in 2000, which is located on the Kedron Brook Road frontage of the site. Ashes have been removed from the columbarium.
  4. [12]
    In terms of its contribution to existing streetscape character, the Place:
  1. (a)
    is largely obscured from view in Dibley Avenue by a hall, and, as a consequence, makes little, if any, contribution to the character of that street (Exhibit 5, pp. 85-87);
  1. (b)
    contributes to the streetscape character in, and around, the corner of Hawdon Street and Kedron Brook Road – the front door and entry to the low-rise Church, juxtaposed with the prominent tower structure provides visual interest to the streetscape (Exhibit 5, pp. 83-84); and
  1. (c)
    presents as an austere, and by reason of its elevation, visually dominant brick face to Kedron Brook Road south of the intersection with Hawdon Street (Exhibit 5, para 3.160 and p. 77), thereby detracting from, rather than enhancing, the streetscape.
  1. [13]
    The Place is no longer used. The use ceased in 2019. This is evident from the condition of the internal space. While components of the original design (i.e. the nave, pulpit, choir stall, vestries and sanctuary) can be identified, the internal space is marked by the absence of fittings and furniture. The absence of these elements means the place of worship cannot be identified as one for a former Methodist congregation, let alone any particular Christian denomination: Exhibit 6, paras 12-13. Contents that have been removed from the internal part of the Place include memorial tablets identifying members of the congregation that served and died in World War I or World War II.
  2. [14]
    An important theme in the respondent’s case is that the Place demonstrates the evolution of Methodist church architecture in Queensland post-World War II. It is also said the architectural qualities of the Place are expressive of ‘Methodism’s expansionist outlook post World War II’ and a desire to ‘remain relevant’. These matters, taken collectively, are not without considerable difficulty. First, the evidence falls well short of establishing that ecclesiastical architecture includes, as a subset, Methodist architecture. Second, even if such a subset is recognised, the evidence does not establish what, if any, modern design elements differentiate this subset from other ecclesiastical architecture. Third, the evidence falls well short of identifying the elements that are present, or manifest, in the building fabric of the Place that are particular to the subset ‘methodist architecture’, let alone expressive of an expansionist outlook or desire to remain relevant. The history of the Place suggests the impetus for the Place was identified in 1944 and simply explained – the impetus was a need to accommodate an ever increasing congregation size rather than ‘blue sky’ (expansionist) thinking, or a desire for the Methodist faith to remain relevant.
  3. [15]
    An examination of the Place with the benefit of the architectural evidence reveals the building fabric presents as a disused place of worship, with only one indicator it was a former Methodist church. The indicator is a foundation stone (paragraph [37]), which is a feature of churches of various denominations and far from a dominant feature of the Place. The conclusion that the fabric of the Place does not exhibit elements particular to a Methodist church, as if it were a subset of ecclesiastical architecture, is inevitable when two things are taken into account, namely: (1) the findings set out in paragraphs [13] and [14] above; (2) the substance of submissions prepared by people with a connection to the Uniting Church (received by the respondent during the decision making process), which do not suggest there is a particular connection between the Place and the Methodist church; and (3) a particular aspect of Mr Olsson’s evidence.
  4. [16]
    It was Mr Olsson’s view that the design features of the Place, which can be attributed to ‘modernism’, were not solely used in Methodist churches. Elements of the Place that relate to religious practice (the nave, sanctuary and vestries) are found in numerous other churches designed and constructed in the 1950s for different denominations: Exhibit 5, para 4.7, p. 61. I did not understand Dr Daunt to disagree with this suggestion: Exhibit 5, para 3.153, p. 43. I accept Mr Olsson’s evidence in this regard. It is made good having regard to the annexures to the architectural joint report, which included extracts from Dr Daunt’s doctoral thesis. The extracts included floor plans for churches designed in the late 1950s and built for various Christian denominations, i.e. not limited to the Methodist church. The plans, in comparison to the Place, demonstrate the very point made by Mr Olsson.
  5. [17]
    The matters traversed in paragraphs [13] to [16] are of significant import. Taken collectively, they suggest that the respondent’s case is founded on an artifice. The case advanced invites the Court to assess the cultural significance of the Place through a particular, and narrow, contextual lens; the lens being that the Place falls within a narrow subset of ecclesiastical architecture, which, on the evidence, does not manifest in the building fabric, fixtures, fittings or furniture.
  6. [18]
    The respondent also places emphasis on the Place being a memorial. The history of the Place, which is set out below, confirms this to be correct. That it was intended to serve as a memorial is not, however, obvious from the building fabric of the Place. In this regard, I found the following part of Mr Olsson’s evidence persuasive (Exhibit 5, para 3.63):

“…This custom of memorialising should be evident in the fabric of the public for it to have ongoing significance.              In the Wilston Methodist Memorial Church, the sign next to the front doors is the only physical evidence of this being a Memorial Church. The tower is not obviously a memorial tower as there is nothing in its physical appearance to signify memorial, however it was originally termed a memorial or Victory tower. The church also previously contained two memorial plaques which are no longer in the church. An honor roll plaque of soldiers’ names from WW1 is in the adjoining church hall. The sign at the front door of the church is the most obvious evidence that this was a memorial church. The most recent church name was Trinity Grove Wilston Uniting Church and the church was closed in 2018 [sic].”

  1. [19]
    Mr Olsson’s evidence is consistent with visual aids before the Court. I accept his evidence in this regard.

History of the Place

  1. [20]
    The history of the Place is the subject of agreement between two historians. Dr Beanland was called by the appellant. Ms Hill was called by the respondent. They set out the history in a joint report: Exhibit 4. An abbreviated version is as follows.
  2. [21]
    The starting point is 1913. In that year, the site was donated to the Methodist church and registered in the name of five trustees under the provision of a model deed of Queensland. At the first meeting of the ‘Wilston Methodist Church Trust’, it was agreed a church should be built and one of the trustees, Mr Chapman, prepare plans and specifications.
  3. [22]
    The calling of tenders, the awarding of a contract and construction of the church proceeded expeditiously.              The design was gothic inspired and constructed of predominantly timber. The church was completed in three and a half months with the first service taking place on 26 October 1913. The official opening took place the day before.
  4. [23]
    World War I commenced about 9 months after the church opened in July 1914. Like many communities across Australia, the congregation was affected by the War. An honour roll was erected and recorded the names of 47 members who enlisted to serve.
  5. [24]
    During the inter-war period (post-World War I and pre-World War II), the suburb of Wilston, like much of Queensland, experienced significant population growth. By the early 1930s, the Wilston census district (of which Wilston forms a part) had increased to 6,655 persons from 1,876 in 1911. By the early 1930s, the suburb had been connected to reticulated water, electricity and the tram network. Census figures for Queensland during the period of 1933 to 1947 indicate substantial population growth continued well into the 1940s. During this period, the population grew 16.8%, with the Methodist church undergoing large growth in the order of 41.4%: Exhibit 4, p. 15. From 1947 to 1961, Queensland’s population grew by 37.3%. During this period, the number of people who classed themselves as Methodists grew by 33.2%. By comparison, during the same period, the number of people who classed themselves as members of: (1) the Roman Catholic church increased by 47.8%; (2) the Church of England increased by 25.1%; and (3) the Presbyterian Church increased by 42.5%: Exhibit 4, p. 20. On any view, the inter-war period saw a ‘renewed religiosity across most denominations throughout Queensland”: Exhibit 4, para 2.31, p. 20.
  6. [25]
    The extent of population growth, and a consequential increase in the number of people classing themselves as Methodist, is reflected in the expansion of the Wilston congregation during the interwar period. The congregation size and its activities increased. As well as Sunday services, the church constructed in 1913 was used for Sunday School, Ladies Guild and a range of youth activities and fund-raising events.
  7. [26]
    With knowledge of the increased congregation size and continued demand for church facilities, it is unsurprising the Trustees decided to replace the small gothic-inspired church with a new facility. This decision is stated in the minutes of meeting dated 27 January 1944. The minutes record that a proposal was brought forward by Mr Chapman to ‘start a new church fund for our boys and girls’. It was resolved that steps be taken to raise funds for a new church, with the fund to be called ‘The Wilston Methodist War Memorial Church Building Fund’.
  8. [27]
    At a later meeting of the Trustees on 30 March 1944, it was resolved to appoint an architect, namely Mr Ford of Chambers and Ford.              The minutes suggest this appointment, and the instructions given to Mr Ford, were informed by a plan prepared by Mr Chapman. The plan was the subject of discussion during a meeting of the Trustees, and subsequently amended. No plans were attached to, or included in, the minutes of the meeting. No further mention of Mr Chapman’s plans is to be found in minutes of meetings after 30 March 1944.
  9. [28]
    The evidence available does not permit a conclusion to be reached as to whether Mr Ford prepared a design for a new church in 1944. Nor does the evidence include a copy or record of the plans prepared, be it in original or amended form, by Mr Chapman. It can however be observed that, by 1944, modernist design ideas began to be adopted for ecclesiastical architecture in Queensland. The evidence suggests this commenced by the late 1930s. Three modernist churches were constructed in Queensland from 1937 to 1941 (Exhibit 4, para 2.37, p. 22), namely: (1) the Shepherd Memorial Church of St Peter’s, Proston (1937), which has been entered in the Queensland heritage register; (2) the Second Church of Christian Scientists, Clayfield (1938); and (3) the First Church of Christian Scientists, Brisbane (1941).
  10. [29]
    In the period following the Trustees’ decision to build a new church, focus turned to fundraising. The fund that had been established for this purpose was far from sufficient to cover the cost of the new church. A lack of sufficient funds was not the only impediment to the planning and construction of the new church. The most significant impediment was World War II. The war brought with it, among other things, labour and material shortages. War time building restrictions were also imposed. Planning for the new church was delayed until early 1953.
  11. [30]
    Minutes of a meeting of the Trustees on 11 February 1953 reveal two representatives were present from the architectural firm Ford, Hutton & Newell. The firm was represented by Mr Hutton and Mr Rayment. The minutes record that the architects were instructed to ‘plan and/or design a semi-modern church constructed of bricks with a seating accommodation of no more than 180 with a maximum cost of no more than £12,000’.
  12. [31]
    The history traversed by Ms Hill and Dr Beanland reveals that Ford, Hutton & Newell gained a number of commissions to design churches throughout Queensland, including during the 1950s. They are regarded as the most prolific designer of churches in the state, securing commissions from 5 denominations, including the Methodist church. The evidence here does not, however, establish that the design of the Place has any special association or connection with this firm’s work. While mentioned in an architectural journal, the evidence does not suggest the design of the Place has been recognised for any particular aesthetic, architectural, creative or technical construction qualities of importance. This is consistent with its omission from a leading architectural text known as ‘Hot Modernism: Queensland Architecture 1945-1975’: Exhibit 14.
  13. [32]
    A preliminary design scheme was prepared by Mr Hutton in May 1953. The design (Exhibit 4, p. 23) depicts the exterior of the Place very close to what was built. Internally, the layout depicted in the plans is different to that constructed. The preliminary design provided for toilets, which were omitted, and sited the vestries together and behind the nave.
  14. [33]
    Records suggest Mr Hutton’s preliminary design was presented to a meeting of the Trustees on 3 June 1953. It was discussed at this meeting and a further meeting on 17 June 1953. The minutes of these meetings record it was resolved as follows, namely:
  1. (a)
    that the secretary instruct Messrs Ford, Hutton and Newell architects to prepare a set of detailed drawings, specifications and quantities to enable the Trustees to call tenders;
  1. (b)
    to appoint a sub-committee, including Mr Chapman, to determine whether, on presentation of the detailed plans and specifications, a church ‘worthy of this Circuit’ can be erected at an economical cost; and
  1. (c)
    to instruct the secretary to apply for a loan of £1,500 from the ‘Presby. & Methodist Loan Fund’.
  1. [34]
    By May 1954, the working drawings for the Place had been prepared. The plans and specifications were tabled at a meeting of the Trustees on 11 May 1954. The minutes record that Mr Chapman pointed out ways of reducing the cost of construction. The differences between the working drawings and the Place as built suggests changes were made to the design to reduce costs but were minor in nature.
  2. [35]
    That the architects had presented a modern design to the Trustees, as distinct from a traditional aesthetic, was a matter of considerable importance to Dr Daunt. To put that decision in context she said in cross-examination (T2-85):

“…I don’t think there’s many challenges that big for an architect to do something big and adventurous now. I don’t quite know what…an equivalent example would be, but to go from that strong tradition…of gothic church architecture and decide to be modern…is a huge step …and it took a lot for these architects to work through that themselves and even more to convince their clients to build modern buildings.”

  1. [36]
    I have difficulty accepting this part of Dr Daunt’s evidence. It is a view that permeated much of her evidence and elevated the assessment of the importance of the Place from an architect’s perspective. The reason I did not accept this part of the evidence is because Dr Daunt did not support the view with references to contemporaneous evidence. For example, I was not referred to any minutes of meetings where the Trustees had to be ‘convinced’ about a modern or even semi-modern design. The absence of any reference, or indeed direct evidence, about this is telling given the instruction recorded in paragraph [30] (to proceed with a ‘semi-modern design’), and the extent to which the history reveals Mr Chapman was involved in the design, amendments to the design and construction of the Place. It can also be observed that the architects’ decision to press forward with a modern design should not, when put in its proper context, necessarily be taken as a huge step. Absent contemporaneous evidence to the contrary, I do not accept it was a ‘huge step’ for the architects to press for a modern design of the Place given the same firm had designed, or was designing, a new modern Anglican church at Annerley (St Phillips), in and around the same time as the Place. The Anglican church has a modern transitional aesthetic like the Place. That design, like the Place, was also preceded by other places of worship that had adopted a transitional modern aesthetic.
  2. [37]
    The contract for the construction of the Place was finalised and signed by 25 October 1954. The foundation stone was laid on 27 November 1954. The stone reads (Exhibit 4, para 2.52, p. 26):

“Wilston Methodist Memorial Church

To the Glory of God

In memory and gratitude to

Those who died and all who served

In World Wars 1914 – 1918 and 1939 – 1945

This stone was laid by

Rev. George E. Holland

President of the Conference

Henry W. Prouse Minister

27th November 1954 Lesley R. Draper Secretary

Eric R. P. Chapman Treasurer”

  1. [38]
    The construction of the Place was reported in the Courier Mail on 10 November 1954 under the headline ‘Modern trend for Wilston’. Reporting the construction of a new church in the Courier Mail was commonplace at the time. The articled stated, in part:

“Methodists at Wilston have chosen a strongly contemporary design for their new church, now being built. The church, on the corner of Kedron Brook Road and Hawdon Street, will have a tall, stark spire contrasting with a low-pitched roof. The building of welded steel encased in brick, with a roof acoustically ceiled and heat insulated, will be a memorial to the dead of the two World Wars.”

  1. [39]
    The opening and dedication of the Place was held on 21 April 1956. The opening was the subject of an article the following week in The Methodist Times. The article stated, in part (Exhibit 4, p. 32):

“New Church at Wilston

More than 1,000 people attended the opening of the Memorial Church at Wilston on Saturday last. The proceedings began outside the building, where the architects, Messrs Ford, Hutton and Newell, the builder, Mr Brian Flynn, Mr John Wheller, who has given generous service in installing the electronic carillon, and others were thanked. The senior trustee, Mr R.D. Chapman presented the key to the ex-President, Rev. J.E. Jacob, who formally opened the doors of the church ‘to the Glory of God’.

…

The Rev. H.W. Prouse, superintendent Minister, made a statement showing that the church was the consummation of a plan which was envisaged twelve years ago.              He paid tribute to his immediate predecessors, during whose ministry much preparatory work had been done. Two years ago the Trustees decided to intensify their efforts with the result that an additional £5,000 has been raised. The friends of the church had shown considerable interest in the project and, in addition to the other contributions to the funds, had given £1600 to pay for the beautiful furnishings, many of which were memorials. Mr Prouse explained that the church was a memorial to all who had served, suffered or died in the two wars. He read a list of 171 young men and women of the church who had served in the Forces, including a large number who had paid the supreme sacrifice and others who had died since the wars.

…

The church is described as ultra-modern in design. The memorial tower, 40 feet high [12m], is the most arresting feature of the unusual architecture.              An electronic carillon has been installed and was effectively used on Saturday for the first time. The sanctuary has a large glass window, with an iron guard, in the front wall and a tall window of anti-glare glass in the back wall, behind the communion table.              On one side are glass doors which can be opened for ventilation. Five electric light lanterns, unique in style, hang from the ceiling on one side of the church, while on the other side there is concealed lighting. The furniture is of silky oak and the floors are nicely carpeted. The recess for the Communion table, on which is a cross, is approached by three steps with a spacious area in front. The pulpit is at the side and the choir gallery is opposite. There are two large vestries, one for the minister and the other for the choir, each adequately furnished. The surrounding area is laid in lawns, flower beds and concrete paths.

The unique character of the architecture evoked expressions both favourable and unfavourable, but all could see that the utmost care had been taken to harmonise the various elements, even to the colours of the walls, etc. Mr Prouse said that the estimated cost of the building was £15,000, and it was expected that the debt would not exceed £5000. …”

  1. [40]
    Photographs taken on the day of the opening are figures 14 to 16 of the Historians’ joint report. Putting to one side the age of the building, a comparison of these figures with contemporary photographs reveals little has changed over time in the external appearance of the Place.
  2. [41]
    The respondent emphasised, as a matter of historical context, that the Place was constructed during a period of significant growth for the Methodist Church. The evidence of Dr Beanland and Ms Hill confirms this to be correct. The Church was constructed during a period of substantial growth in the 1950s. That said, context should not, like a number of aspects of the respondent’s case, be unduly narrowed to the Methodist Church. Contextually, a number of Christian denominations experienced significant growth in the 1950s.              This growth, across many denominations, underpinned a boom in church construction from 1955 to 1965. More churches were constructed in Queensland between 1955 and 1959 than any other period: Exhibit 5, pp. 24-25. The evidence suggests a number of Christian denominations, including the Methodist Church, were on a journey together – many churches were being constructed and aesthetically evolving from traditional to modernist forms of architecture in the 1950s and 1960s. Conversely, the evidence does not suggest that the rate at which designs evolved, or transitioned, to a modern aesthetic had a nexus with any one Christian denomination.
  3. [42]
    During the decade following the opening of the Place, the gothic timber building constructed in 1913 was re-purposed and used as a hall. In 1966, after further fundraising, the hall was refurbished and modernised. At the same time, a doorway was constructed in the eastern wall of the lobby of the Place.
  4. [43]
    In 1977, when the Uniting Church was officially formed by the amalgamation of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, the Wilston Methodist Memorial Church became part of the Uniting Church. It was renamed. The signage on the front of the Church was changed to read ‘Wilston Uniting Memorial Church’. The church was renamed again sometime after 1977. It was changed to the Trinity Wilston Memorial Church and then the Trinity Grove Uniting Church. The signage on the front of the Church still refers to ‘Wilston Uniting Memorial Church’.
  5. [44]
    In 2000, a brick columbarium was constructed along the western side of the Place. It can be seen from Kedron Brook Road.
  6. [45]
    The Trinity Grove Uniting Church closed in 2019 due to declining congregation numbers. The final service was held on 27 October 2019. Following its closure, fixtures and fittings were removed and sold. The ashes were also removed from the columbarium.
  7. [46]
    In December 2020, an application for development approval was made to Brisbane City Council to demolish the hall. This application was refused on 11 February 2021. An application to enter the Place in the Queensland heritage register followed after the refusal. The application for entry in the Queensland heritage register was made by Dr Thom Blake. He is a heritage consultant who has made a number of applications to the respondent to enter places of worship in the Queensland heritage register. Despite making the application to the respondent, and urging it to list the Place, Dr Blake played no part in this appeal as a party or witness.

Statutory assessment and decision making regime

  1. [47]
    The application to enter the Place was the subject of a heritage recommendation given by the Chief Executive’s delegate under s 44(1) of the QHA. When deciding an application about which there has been such a recommendation, s 53(3) of the QHA provides:

“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. [48]
    In this case, the delegate recommended the Place be entered into the Queensland heritage register. Section 53(1) makes plain that prior to entry in register, the ‘council’ must reach a level of satisfaction about the cultural heritage criteria. Sub-section (1) relevantly provides:

“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. [49]
    The phrase ‘cultural heritage criteria’ is defined in the Schedule to the QHA. It is defined as the criteria for entry in the Queensland heritage register stated in s 35(1). Here, the council decided three of the criteria were satisfied, namely subsections (a), (d) and (e). Sections 35(1)(a), (d) and (e) are in the following terms:
  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. (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. [50]
    Section 35(1) requires, in the first instance, the identification of the ‘place’. The relevant place for this appeal is that discussed in paragraph [7] and located by reference to the cadastral plan, which is Annexure B.
  2. [51]
    It can also be seen from each of the above subsections that the place, in order to meet the cultural heritage criterion of relevance, is to be ‘important’. This Court has held that ‘important’, in the context of s 35 of the QHA, takes the relevant criterion beyond the common place, but not so as to require something out of the ordinary or exceptional: The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No. 2) [2017] QPELR 391, [24].
  1. [52]
    In making a decision about a heritage recommendation, s 51(2) of the QHA states:
  1. “(2)
    the place is important because of its aesthetic significance;”
  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 a 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. [53]
    Sections 51(2)(a)(iv) and (v) speak of representations or responses to the heritage recommendation. Material tendered on behalf of the respondent indicates that the heritage council received oral representations from Dr Daunt. The material also includes a response to the heritage recommendation made on behalf of the appellant.
  2. [54]
    Dr Daunt’s evidence did not disclose to the Court the substance of her oral representations to the heritage council. This, in my view, was entirely unsatisfactory. Accordingly, I raised the matter in final addresses with Mr Morzone KC. In response, an affidavit was sworn by Dr Daunt. It deposes to the substance of the oral representations made to the heritage council, to the best of Dr Daunt’s recollection. The appeal was listed for a further hearing in relation to this aspect of the evidence. After carefully reviewing this evidence, I was satisfied Dr Daunt’s oral representations are generally consistent with the evidence she gave to this Court as an expert witness.
  3. [55]
    The appellant’s response to the heritage recommendation was also included in the material.              The response did not support entering the Place in the Queensland heritage register. Entry was opposed by the appellant. The response, taken in combination with the written representations received under ss 43 and 48 of the QHA, identified that those connected with the Methodist faith, and or Uniting Church, did not support the listing. Nor did the same material suggest the authors of submissions had a special relationship, or connection, with the architecture of the Place, be it as an example of modernism, expression of expansion, expression of an intent to remain relevant or as a memorial.
  4. [56]
    Section 173 of the QHA has in mind that the Chief Executive may make guidelines about a number of matters under the Act. Exhibit 8 is a guideline published by the Chief Executive pursuant to s 173 of the QHA. It is titled ‘Assessing cultural heritage significance’ (the Guideline). Both parties, and their experts, referred extensively to the Guideline.
  1. [57]
    While I accept the Guideline is a relevant consideration in this appeal, a review of its content suggests it needs to be approached with considerable caution. Caution is called for because the document purports to tell the reader how section 35(1) of the QHA is to be interpreted and satisfied. For example, the Guideline:
  1. (a)
    expands upon the term ‘cultural heritage significance’ by reference to the Macquarie dictionary (Exhibit 8, p. 13) in circumstances where the term is defined in the QHA;
  1. (b)
    expands upon the term ‘aesthetic significance’ by reference to the Macquarie dictionary (Exhibit 8, p. 14) in circumstances where the term is defined in the QHA;
  1. (c)
    purports to define phrases such as architectural, historical and social significance (Exhibit 8, pp. 15-18) in circumstances where they are not defined in the QHA and are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning, informed by statutory context; and
  1. (d)
    states a method for ‘determining’ State cultural heritage significance by reference to the application of significance and threshold indicators, which:
  1. (i)
    do not appear in s 35 of the QHA; and
  1. (ii)
    are different to the criteria stated in s 35 of the QHA.
  1. [58]
    The Guideline is, after all, just that – it is a ‘guideline’. Assessment against the Guideline is a relevant consideration: The Uniting Church in Australia (Supra), [49]. Slavish adherence to its contents is to be eschewed. It is the words of s 35(1) of the QHA that identify the questions to be asked and answered: Sisters of Mercy (supra), [17]. To apply the Guideline as if it were a proxy for s 35, or to apply the methodology stated therein as if it were decisive in determining the fate of an application to enter a place in the Queensland heritage register, would, in my view, lead a decision maker into error.
  1. [59]
    Where, as here, it was decided that a place should be entered in the Queensland heritage register, s 31 of the Queensland Heritage Act prescribes the requirements for that entry. For each place or area, the entry must:
  1. “(3)
    An entry in the Queensland heritage register, for each place or area, must—
  1. (a)
    include enough information to identify the location and boundaries of the place or area; and
  1. (b)
    include information about the history of the place or area; and
  1. (c)
    include a description of the place or area; and
  1. (d)
    if the place or area is the subject of a heritage agreement—state that fact; and
  1. (e)
    for a State heritage place—include a statement about the cultural heritage significance of the place related to the cultural heritage criteria;”
  1. [60]
    Sub-section (3)(e) applies to this appeal because the place entered is a State heritage place. As a consequence, the register must include a record of a statement about the cultural heritage significance of the place related to the cultural heritage criteria. This statement is Annexure A to these reasons for judgment.
  2. [61]
    The respondent’s case was conducted on the footing that the statement of significance prepared pursuant to s 31(3)(e) framed the issues to be considered in the appeal. Subject to one qualification, the respondent did not seek to depart from what was stated in the statement of significance. It is, in this sense, correct to say that the statement of significance is an important document in the appeal. It does not however represent the start and finish of the issues in dispute, leading to the qualification referred to above. Mr Morzone KC and Mr Loos correctly pointed out that the Court is not bound by the statement of significance. This is correct. It is open for the Court, in a hearing anew, to be satisfied the cultural heritage criteria are met for reasons founded on the evidence, even though the reasons may be different to what is articulated in the statement of significance.

The disputed issues

  1. [62]
    The disputed issues to be determined can be stated as follows:
  1. 1.
    Is the Place important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history? (Criterion (a))
  1. 2.
    Is the Place important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural place? (Criterion (d))
  1. 3.
    Is the Place important because of its aesthetic significance? (Criterion (e))
  1. 4.
    Should the Place be included in the Queensland heritage register in the exercise of the discretion under s 53 of the QHA?
  1. [63]
    The appellant contends the questions posed in relation to each of Criterion (a), (d) and (e) are resolved in the negative. In the alternative, it was contended the Court would not exercise its discretion to enter the Place in the Queensland heritage register, assuming one or more of the criteria were in fact satisfied.
  2. [64]
    It is unnecessary to deal with the discretion issue. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied the Place does not satisfy s 35(1) of the QHA. The decision to enter the Place in the Queensland heritage register will be set aside.
  3. [65]
    I now turn to examine the disputed issues.

Criterion (a)

  1. [66]
    Section 35(1)(a) of the QHA requires this question to be examined: is the Place important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history?
  2. [67]
    I am satisfied this question is resolved in the negative.
  3. [68]
    The Place, for the purposes of Criterion (a), is an example of a mid-1950s modernist church in Queensland, expressing a soft or transitional aesthetic. As an example of this class of place, the evidence establishes it is unexceptional: Exhibit 5, particularly p. 135 onwards. It is one of a number of churches constructed in this period expressing the same aesthetic and sharing common design attributes, which are not specific, or limited to, the Methodist church: paragraphs [14] to [17].              A comparable example is St Phillip’s Anglican Church at Annerley: Exhibit 5, p. 241. The similarity in the design of the Place and St Phillip’s is undeniable. St Phillip’s was designed by the same architectural firm, Ford, Hutton & Newell. It was also constructed before the Place in 1955. Like the Place, it has a soft or transitional modern brick aesthetic, with a tower; it has a simple colour and material palette; and it has a nave, with an after space and adjoining vestry.
  1. [69]
    To assess ‘importance’, the respondent emphasised the following factual matters said to be established by the evidence, namely the Place:
  1. (a)
    is highly intact;
  1. (b)
    is the first modernist Methodist church constructed in Queensland;
  1. (c)
    influenced the design of Methodist churches and churches constructed for a range of Christian denominations; and
  1. (d)
    demonstrates community involvement in, and commemoration of, major world events.
  1. [70]
    With respect to paragraph [69](a), I was not satisfied it can be accepted, without qualification, that the place is ‘highly intact’. The proposition is intending to convey that the Place is substantially unaltered and, in conjunction with other matters, important. It is accurate to describe the external appearance of the Place as highly intact. The modifications to the external appearance are limited to those identified in paragraphs [42] to [45]. The same cannot be said for the internal presentation of the Place; it is no longer identifiable as a former Methodist church: paragraph [13].
  2. [71]
    If it is assumed the Place is highly intact as contended by the respondent, this, in my view, does no more than elevate the place to a ‘highly intact’ and unexceptional example of a mid-1950s modernist church in Queensland, expressing a soft or transitional aesthetic. To describe the Place in this way does not establish it is of sufficient importance to satisfy Criterion (a).
  3. [72]
    The point identified in paragraph [69](b) represents a critical assumption for the respondent’s case, and the opinions expressed by its experts. Indeed, the timing of the Place relative to other Methodist churches is heavily relied upon to establish, among other things, it meets the ‘earliness’ threshold indicator in the Guideline for Criterion (a).
  4. [73]
    An examination of the evidence, in my view, suggests it is wrong, or at best an over-simplification, to characterise the Place as a ‘first’.
  5. [74]
    The evidence establishes that the Place is not the first modernist church constructed in Queensland. Three such churches were constructed in Queensland prior to World War II. They exhibit modernist design features: Exhibit 5, para 3.1.33, p. 47. The churches are: (1) The Shepherd Memorial Church of St Peters, Proston (1937); (2) The Second Church of Christian Scientist, Clayfield (1938); and (3) The First Church of Christian Scientist, Brisbane (1941). Like the Place, the first and third examples have a transitional modern aesthetic and are early examples of a modernist church in Queensland. The Place is also pre-dated by a church exhibiting modernist design elements and of a transitional aesthetic; it is St Phillips Anglican Church at Annerley, designed by Ford, Hutton & Newell: paragraph [68].
  6. [75]
    Once the background in paragraph [74] is appreciated, it is difficult to conclude the Place is truly an early example of a modernist church in Queensland. This explains why the respondent (and its experts) strongly emphasised that the Place is the first modern Methodist church in Queensland. This point of emphasis, however, is not without difficulty.
  7. [76]
    The evidence, primarily that contained in the annexures to the architecture joint report, reveals the Place is one of a number of examples where a Methodist Church was designed and constructed after World War II to include (to varying degrees) modernist design features: Exhibit 5, pp. 118-131. The examples to which I will refer shortly exhibit, to varying degrees, a transitional modern aesthetic like the Place. The starting point for the evolution, or transition, to modern design emerges in the early 1950s. It was at this time a brick ‘modern Gothic’ church was constructed for the Methodists at Chermside: Exhibit 5, p. 120. The design, which included ‘modern’ elements, represents the start of the transition from traditional architecture to modernism for Methodist churches.
  1. [77]
    The transition in the design of Methodist churches from traditional to modern was, as history makes clear, impeded by wartime restrictions on building materials and labour. The restrictions, once lifted, saw the construction of a great number of places of worship, including Methodist churches. Indeed, a number of Methodist churches were constructed during 1956 exhibiting modern design elements and a transitional aesthetic. They include (Exhibit 5, pp. 125-126):
  1. (a)
    Kings College War Memorial (1956);
  1. (b)
    Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (23 April, 1956);
  1. (c)
    Beerwah Methodist (opened 6 May, 1956);
  1. (d)
    Yeronga Methodist (opened 22 September, 1956); and
  1. (e)
    Cassowary Methodist (opened 24 November, 1956).
  1. [78]
    Each of these places exhibit modern design elements, to varying degrees. They are fairly characterised as having a transitional aesthetic like the Place.
  2. [79]
    Comparing the Place with those identified in paragraphs [76] and [77], and indeed, other modernist churches designed and constructed in the 1950s for different Christian denominations (e.g. Exhibit 5, para 3.134, p. 47) does not lead me to conclude: (1) the Place is an example that stands out as a marker, or point of transition from traditional to modern Methodist church design, or modernist church design simpliciter; or (2) that the timing of the construction of the Place has any particular import when considered in the context of the evolution of contemporary church design. This includes Methodist churches, constructed before, during or after 1956.
  3. [80]
    With respect to paragraph [69](c), as a general proposition, I accept the design of the Place may have influenced subsequent Methodist churches and churches for other Christian denominations; however, for reasons given in paragraph [10], I do not accept the evidence establishes the assessment of the ‘importance’ of the Place (for Criterion (a)) should assume the proposition identified at paragraph [69](c) has been made out.
  1. [81]
    With respect to paragraph [69](d), I am satisfied the Place does not reach the required level of importance for demonstrating community involvement in, and commemoration of, major world events such as World War I and II. This is so for two reasons taken in combination. First, given the matters traversed in paragraph [18], which lead to a conclusion that the commemoration or memorialising of World War I and II is not a strong feature of the building fabric of the Place. Second, while the history of the Place reveals an intention that the Place be a memorial to servicemen and women, the same history also reveals that funding the construction of the Place was of great moment to the Trustees. In this context, it was not uncommon for a facility, such as a new church, to be identified as a memorial to raise money to finance construction costs. Indeed, tax relief could be obtained at the time the Place was constructed on the footing it was intended to be a memorial: Exhibit 4, p. 18. In his Statement of Evidence, Dr Beanland helpfully (Exhibit 6, p. 3) said:

“Tax deductions were used by the former Wilston Methodist Memorial Church to raise funds for construction of the Church. To enable tax deductibility for donations the Church resolved in 1944 to call it a ‘Memorial’ Church.              KS Inglis in Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape contends that people were putting up useful memorials for the wrong reason, not to honour service and sacrifice but to gain a tax deduction.              ‘The War Memorial’, observed The Bulletin’s Patricia Rolfe ‘is to generate local interest by an appeal to sentiment and tax deductions’. The RSL’s national congress passed a critical motion about the practice as early as 1947, and resolved unanimously in 1963 that the indiscriminate use of the term ‘war memorial’ as applied to under-taking such as swimming baths, sports ovals, public buildings and many other buildings should be discontinued.              The League’s President…identified a form tactfully omitted from that list of examples. According to Yeo, churches were the worst offenders.”

  1. [82]
    Given paragraphs [68] to [81], I am not persuaded the points of emphasis relied upon by the respondent, and its experts, should be accepted. The points do not establish the Place is important for the purpose of Criterion (a).
  2. [83]
    The statement of significance prepared by the respondent for s 31(3)(e) of the QHA frames its primary case about Criterion (a). A review of the statement reveals the respondent regards the place as ‘important’ in demonstrating the evolution of Queensland’s history by reference to two themes. First, it is said the Place is important in demonstrating ‘the evolution of Methodist Church architecture in Queensland post-World War II’.              Second, it is said the Place is important in demonstrating community involvement in, and commemoration of, major world wars in a utilitarian form. For reasons already given, I am not persuaded the importance of the Place, for the purposes of Criterion (a), is demonstrated by reference to these themes.
  3. [84]
    The statement of significance also contains factual assertions which, it would be clear having regard to the reasons above, I do not accept demonstrate the Place is important for the purpose of Criterion (a). The factual assertions, which are central to the respondent’s position and fall into this category are: (1) that the Place is ‘a highly intact 1950s modernist-style church’; (2) that the Place demonstrates the evolution of Methodist church architecture; (3) that the Place is the first modernist style Methodist church completed in Queensland during a transitional period; and (4) that the Place is important in demonstrating community involvement in, and commemoration of major world events.
  1. [85]
    The respondent’s case in relation to Criterion (a) was largely focussed on the Guideline. It contended Criterion (a) was satisfied because the Place:
  1. (a)
    achieves the significance indicators of ‘product, result or outcome of a phase or movement in history’, ‘example’, ‘was influenced by’ and ‘has influenced’ (Exhibit 17, para 38); and
  1. (b)
    achieves the threshold indicators of ‘earliness’, ‘representativeness’, ‘regional importance’, and ‘rarity’ (Exhibit 17, para 39).
  1. [86]
    It is clear from the respondent’s written submissions that its case in relation to the significance and threshold indicators assumes a number of matters are resolved in its favour. The relevant matters are identified at paragraph 37 of the respondent’s written submissions, which states:

“The Wilston Methodist Memorial Church is a highly intact early -in fact the first - example of a 1950s Modernist-style Methodist Church in Queensland.              It demonstrates and represents a ‘soft’ modern architectural phase in the development and evolution of modern church architecture which occurred in Queensland in the 1950s. It marks a significant point in Methodist Church architecture in Queensland and reflects the changing mission of the church in the post-World War II period.              The church also is a representative example of a mid-century community church war memorial demonstrating a common pattern of commemoration of those who served and those who died from the church community during WWI and WWII.              The dual purpose of church buildings as places of worship and memorials was a dimension of modernism itself. The Wilston Church typified the changing approaches of the Methodist Church in the post-war period. It is a good representative and early example of this new ‘modern’ type of Methodist Church and, therefore, important in marking this time of change.”

  1. [87]
    This submission does not, in my view, introduce a new point beyond that set out in the statement of significance for Criterion (a). I have, as a consequence, formed the same view about the above submission (and the threshold and significance indicators it is said to underpin) as I have for the statement of significance: paragraphs [83] and [84]. I do not, as a consequence, accept the submission is the correct footing on which to examine the Place against the Guideline, particularly Criterion (a).
  2. [88]
    Given the respondent’s submissions in relation to the application of the Guideline for Criterion (a) proceed on a footing I do not accept, it is unnecessary to examine in detail the submissions made in relation to threshold and significance indicators. It is, in my view, sufficient to dispose of the matter in this way: if it is assumed the significance and threshold indicators pressed by the respondent are engaged for the reasons advanced, I am not satisfied Criterion (a) is met in any event. This is because the threshold and significance indicators pressed by the respondent are engaged by employing an artificially narrow approach to the importance of the Place. This is exemplified by the submission set out above and the statement of significance. Both place heavy, and undue, reliance upon the recognition of ‘Methodist church architecture’ as a distinct subset of ecclesiastical architecture. Such a distinction is an artificial one, in my view. The drawing of this distinction led the respondent, and its experts, to materially overstate the importance of the Place for the purposes of Criterion (a), particularly once it is appreciated the features of the architectural subset relied upon are not evident from the building fabric, fixtures or furniture of the Place.
  3. [89]
    I am satisfied the application of the Guideline does not call for the Place to be regarded as important for the purposes of Criterion (a).
  4. [90]
    The appellant has established the Place does not satisfy Criterion (a).

Criterion (d)

  1. [91]
    Section 35(1)(d) of the QHA requires consideration be given to this question: whether the Place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural place?
  1. [92]
    For the purpose of answering this question, I accept a church, or place of worship, is a particular class of cultural place. The respondent’s case, as articulated in the statement of significance, is that the ‘particular class of cultural place’ of relevance here is a ‘1950s modernist church’. The statement of significance goes on to provide that the Place demonstrates the principal characteristics of this class of place in this way:

“…is demonstrated in its: all-encompassing and unified modernist aesthetic; restrained materials palette; form and layout expressive of worship practices; and simplified traditional church spaces (nave, sanctuary, vestries), church fixtures, fittings, furniture (including chancel rail, pulpit, and choir stall), and motifs.”

  1. [93]
    The ‘principal characteristics’ of the cultural place identified in the statement of significance represent a combination of building fabric, fixtures and fittings. Dr Daunt confirmed that fixtures and furniture were equally important as the exterior of the Place and its design: T2-64, L26 to 28.
  2. [94]
    The extent to which it is contended the ‘principal characteristics’ of a particular class of place are demonstrated is informed by the first line of the statement of significance for Criterion (d). It is the respondent’s case that the Place is ‘highly intact’.
  3. [95]
    When the statement of significance for Criterion (d) is considered in light of the background traversed in paragraphs [8] to [19] and paragraph [68], I do not accept it is accurate to say the Place demonstrates the principal characteristics of a 1950s modernist church in every respect identified. The Place does not: (1) have a form and layout being expressive of worship practices; and (2) demonstrate the principal characteristics of the class of place through fixtures, fittings and motifs. To proceed with an assessment of the Place on a contrary basis is not supported by the evidence I accept. It would also mean the extent to which principal characteristics of the class identified are demonstrated by the Place is overstated.
  1. [96]
    Putting the statement of significance to one side, it can be asked: whether the Place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a 1950s modernist church? This question, in my view, is answered in the negative when the following matters are taken in combination, along with a recognition that the Place is no longer used for a Methodist or Uniting Church, namely:
  1. (a)
    the background traversed in paragraphs [8] to [19];
  1. (b)
    the findings in paragraphs [68] and [70] to [80];
  1. (c)
    as the respondent itself determined at first instance, the available evidence does not suggest the Place has any special association, or derives importance, by reason that it is the work of an accomplished Queensland architectural firm, Ford, Hutton & Newell; and
  1. (d)
    Mr Olsson’s evidence contrasting the Place with modernist churches that have already been included in the Queensland heritage register – this evidence demonstrates that the churches listed express a much higher quality of architectural design and workmanship than the Place: Exhibit 7, pp. 7-8.
  1. [97]
    The respondent’s case in relation to Criterion (d) focussed on the Guideline. It was contended Criterion (d) was satisfied by reference to the Guideline because the Place:
  1. (a)
    achieves the significance indicators of ‘a custom’, ‘the impact of an ideology, value, philosophy’, ‘a function that has been an important part of the pattern of Queensland history’, ‘variations within, or the evolution of, or the transition of the principal characteristics of a class of Cultural Places’, ‘the work of a designer’, the ‘principal characteristics of form’ and ‘architectural style’ (Exhibit 17, para 44); and
  1. (b)
    achieves the threshold indicators of ‘intactness’, ‘earliness’, ‘representativeness’ and ‘rarity/uncommonness’ of ‘regional importance’, and ‘rarity’ (Exhibit 17, para 45).
  1. [98]
    For present purposes, it can be assumed that the respondent’s submissions about significance indicators can be accepted. The difficulty for the respondent’s case arises in a more pressing way in relation to the threshold indicators, that is the indicators directed at importance. On close and careful examination of the respondent’s written submissions about this aspect of the Guideline, it can be seen that the importance of the Place for Criterion (d), from the respondent’s perspective, is derived, in part, from the contention that it is an early and uncommon example of a highly intact modern Methodist church in Queensland: Exhibit 17, para 45(b) and (c). I am satisfied the importance of the Place is not demonstrated on this basis in light of paragraphs [13] to [18], [68] and [70] to [80].
  2. [99]
    I am satisfied the application of the Guideline does not call for the Place to be regarded as important for the purposes of Criterion (d).
  1. [100]
    The appellant has established the Place does not satisfy Criterion (d).

Criterion (e)

  1. [101]
    Section 35(1)(e) of the QHA requires consideration be given to this question: is the Place important because of its aesthetic significance?
  2. [102]
    The phrase ‘aesthetic significance’ is defined in the Schedule to the QHA as follows:

“Aesthetic significance, of a place or artefact, includes its visual merit or interest.”

  1. [103]
    The statement of significance prepared for Criterion (e) provides that the aesthetic importance of the Place is derived from its architectural qualities, expressive of: (1) Methodism’s expansionist outlook post-World War II; and (2) a desire to remain relevant to Queensland society at the time. These attributes are said to emanate from its cohesive modernist styling.
  2. [104]
    Given the findings in paragraphs [14] to [16], I do not accept the Place, and its attributes, are expressive of an expansionist outlook by the Methodists, or a desire to remain relevant in the 1950s. Indeed, the attributes of the Place, and its architectural qualities, are found in numerous churches designed and constructed in the 1950s for a number of Christian denominations. The Place is, as Mr Olsson opined, a commonplace example of a 1950s modernist church.
  1. [105]
    It should be observed that, in his assessment of the aesthetic significance of the Place for Criterion (e), Mr Olsson took into account the landmark quality of the tower structure, the architectural qualities of the Place, and the visual merit and interest of the Place. Mr Olsson balanced this against, correctly in my view, that:
  1. (a)
    the expressive qualities of the Place are not the sole province of the Methodist Church, but rather general expressive qualities of modernist architecture as it was developed post-World War II;
  1. (b)
    the architectural qualities of the Place are not expressive of Methodism’s desire to be expansionist or remain relevant;
  1. (c)
    the streetscape, and topography, of the site, causes the Place to be visually closed and distant, particularly for the pedestrian or driver on Kedron Brook Road; and
  1. (d)
    the Place has a compromised visual relationship with two of its three street frontages.
  1. [106]
    I accept Mr Olsson’s streetscape assessment and assessment of the visual qualities of the Place. His evidence is consistent with my own findings set out at paragraph [12] and [14].
  1. [107]
    The respondent’s case in relation to Criterion (e) is directed towards the Guideline. It contended Criterion (e) was satisfied having regard to the Guideline because the Place:
  1. (a)
    achieves the significance indicators of ‘beautiful attributes’, ‘evocative qualities’, ‘expressive              attributes’,              ‘landmark              quality’,              ‘streetscape contribution’ and ‘symbolic meaning’ (Exhibit 17, para 48); and
  1. (b)
    achieves the threshold indicators of ‘intactness’, ‘setting and location’ and ‘demonstrated representation’ (Exhibit 17, para 49).
  1. [108]
    Does the place meet the significance indicators for Criterion (e)?
  2. [109]
    In my view this question is resolved in the negative.
  1. [110]
    Having regard to visual aids before the Court, and the benefit of a site inspection, I was satisfied the Place has visual and aesthetic merit. It is, however, an exaggeration to suggest (as the respondent and its experts do) the Place:
  1. (a)
    is beautiful by reason of its cohesive modernist styling (beautiful attributes)
  1. (b)
    has qualities that inspire an emotional response (evocative, landmark quality and symbolic meaning);
  1. (c)
    has a soft or transitional modern aesthetic, possessing expressive attributes that evoke an aesthetic response (expressive attributes); and
  1. (d)
    has strong aesthetic significance in terms of its streetscape contribution (streetscape contribution).
  1. [111]
    The extent to which the aesthetic significance of the Place has been exaggerated by the respondent, and its experts, is demonstrated by comparing Figure 4 of Exhibit 7 with the photographs of the Place at Exhibit 5, pp. 74-87. The former is a photograph of St John’s Lutheran Church, Bundaberg.
  2. [112]
    The respondent’s submissions about the threshold indicators for Criterion (e) assume: (1) the Court accepts its submissions about the significance indicators stated in the Guideline; and (2) the statement of significance is correct. Given I do not accept either assumption has been made out, it is unnecessary to dwell upon the threshold indicators relied upon by the respondent. I would, however, observe that I accept the intactness threshold indicator is engaged here because, in the context of Criterion (e), it is directed towards the appearance of the Place. There is little doubt the external appearance of the Place is intact.
  3. [113]
    I am satisfied the application of the Guideline does not call for the Place to be regarded as important for the purposes of Criterion (e).
  4. [114]
    The appellant has demonstrated the Place does not satisfy Criterion (e).

Disposition of the appeal

  1. [115]
    The appellant has discharged the onus.
  1. [116]
    The orders of the court will be:
  1. 1.
    The appeal is allowed.
  1. 2.
    The respondent’s decision to enter the Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (former), Wilston in the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place is set aside.
  1. 3.
    The Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (former) be removed from the Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place.

Annexure A

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council [2024] QPEC 25

Annexure B

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council [2024] QPEC 25

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council

  • MNC:

    [2024] QPEC 25

  • Court:

    QPEC

  • Judge(s):

    Williamson KC DCJ

  • Date:

    14 May 2024

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
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
The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QPEC 40
Cite 2 - [2023] QPEC 40
Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (No 2) [2017] QPELR 391
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QPELR 391
Cite 2 - [2017] QPELR 391

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.