Struck from the Register – Court removes churches’ heritage listing

Thynne + Macartney successfully represented the Uniting Church of Queensland in the Planning and Environment Court (the Court) in appeals against two separate decisions by the Queensland Heritage Council (the Heritage Council) to list the Ashgrove Methodist Church (former) (the Ashgrove Church) and Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (former) (the Wilston Church) as State Heritage Places on the Queensland Heritage Register (the Register) under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) (the Act). Both listings were instigated by third-party applications.

Successful appeals against the listing of places on the Register have been rare in recent years, but these decisions (The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) ABN 25 548 385 225 v Queensland Heritage Council [2023] QPEC 40 and The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council [2024] QPEC 25) are examples of the Court being satisfied that a church did not meet the criteria to be listed on the Queensland Heritage Register. The decision by the Court to remove the churches from the Register will enable the Uniting Church of Queensland to activate underutilized land for more modern private and community-based uses.

Under the Act, for a place to be listed on the Register, it must satisfy one or more of the following eight cultural heritage criteria set out in s35(1) of the Act:

(a) the place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history;

(b) the place demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage;

(c) the place has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Queensland’s history; Example of a place for paragraph (c)— a place that has potential to contain an archaeological artefact that is an important source of information about Queensland’s history

(d) the place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places;

(e) the place is important because of its aesthetic significance;

(f) the place is important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period;

(g) the place has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

(h) the place has a special association with the life or work of a particular person, group or organisation of importance in Queensland’s history.

The Heritage Council argued in both matters that the churches should be included on the Register because they were important examples of modernist methodist architecture. Ultimately, the Court found in both instances that neither building satisfied any of the criteria outlined in s35(1) of the Act.

In both matters, the Court reiterated that while supporting documentation in the Statement of Significance that accompanies each entry and the Guideline “Assessing cultural heritage significance – Using the cultural heritage criteria” (the Guideline) were relevant considerations, slavish adherence to these were to be avoided as it is the Act that binds the Court and matters must be determined having regard to all of the admissible evidence before the Court.

Ashgrove Church

In the case of the Ashgrove Church, the Court found that the church failed to satisfy either criteria (a) and (e) as claimed by its entry in the Register for the following reasons:

• the church was not a rare example of a post-war modern church building built across Queensland nor was it the “last surviving” or “rare early evidence” of such an example;
• there was no evidence that the building held a highly distinctive or exceptional place in Queensland’s history; and
• the aesthetic significance of the church was diminished by:
  • its limited visibility from the public realm;
  • the poor quality of its external surrounds and setting; and
  • the original building fabric had been meaningfully changed over time such that its intactness and integrity was substantially compromised.

Wilston Church

In the instance of the Wilston Church, the Court found that the church failed to satisfy any of criteria (a), (d) and (e) as claimed by its entry in the Registry for the following reasons:

• the church was not highly intact;
• the church was not the first modernist style Methodist church completed in Queensland during a transitional period nor did it demonstrate the evolution of Methodist church architecture;
• the church was one of a number of churches constructed during the period expressing the same aesthetic and sharing common design attributes which were not specific or limited to the Methodist church and of a lower quality of architectural design and workmanship;
• the church was not important in demonstrating community involvement in, and commemoration of major world events;
• the church did not demonstrate principal characteristics of a 1950s modernist church in every respect identified; and
• while the church had visual and aesthetic merit, it was an exaggeration to suggest that it was beautiful by reason of its modernist styling, inspired an emotional response, evoked an aesthetic response or had strong aesthetic significance in terms of its streetscape contribution.

Key Takeaways

When deciding to maintain or remove an entry on the Register, the Court will assess each matter on all of the evidence before it and is not bound by supporting guidelines or the Statement of Significance that accompanies an entry.

When a place is entered onto the Heritage Register against the wishes of the owner, the Planning and Environment Court offers an avenue to challenge the listing in circumstances where there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria in the Act.

Tim Quirk

Recognised as a finalist at Lawyers’ Weekly Partner of the Year Awards – Planning and Environment in 2023, 2022 and 2021, Tim leads Thynne + Macartney’s Planning + Environment team and has over 25 years’ experience practising in planning and environment and local government law in Queensland. Since 2020, Tim has won a number of landmark planning and environment matters in the Planning and Environment Court. He is sought out by clients looking to resolve difficult and high profile planning and environment disputes.

Lewis Radford

Lewis is a lawyer in the Planning + Environment team at Thynne + Macartney. He assists clients to navigate the complexities of planning and environment law at all stages of their projects. Lewis works closely with Tim Quirk and his planning and environment experience includes land development and land use, heritage and demolition issues, environmental offences and vegetation clearing and management