The case of The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) v Queensland Heritage Council [2024] QPEC 25 concerned an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) against the decision of the Queensland Heritage Council (Heritage Council) to enter the Trinity Grove Church by reference to its former name being the "Wilston Methodist Memorial Church (former)" (Church) into the Queensland Heritage Register (Register).

The Court was satisfied that the Appellant advanced a positive case against entering the Church into the Register and decided the Church did not meet the requirements to be entered into the Register, setting aside the decision of the Heritage Council, and removing the Church from the Register.

The Church is located in Wilston on a corner site with three road frontages to Kedron Brook Road, Hawdon Street, and Dibbey Avenue (Subject Site), and includes the Church, an associated tower, columbarium, hall, and toilet block (at [6]).

In 1913 a small gothic inspired church was constructed on the Subject Site which was later replaced in 1956 with the Church following population growth and increased congregation size (see [21], [26], and [39]). The Church closed in 2019 following a decline in congregation numbers (at [45]).

In December 2020, a development application was made to the Brisbane City Council to demolish the hall component of the Church, which was refused in February 2021 (at [46]). The refusal was followed by an application by the Heritage Council to enter the Church and tower as a "place" in the Register (Place) (see [46] and [7]). A "place" may be entered into the Register if it satisfies one or more of the criteria for entry in the Register contained in section 35 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) (QHA).

Entry of the Place into the Register was opposed by the Appellant (at [55]). However, on 12 November 2021 the Heritage Council decided to enter the Place into the Register on the basis that it satisfied sections 35(1)(a), (d), and (e) of the QHA, which state as follows (at [1] and [49]):

"(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—

(a)   the place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of 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;…"

The Court noted that for a "place" to meet the cultural heritage criterion of relevance, it is to be "important" (at 51]). The Court noted that it has previously held that "important" in the context of section 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…" (at [51]).

Section 161 of the QHA confers the right to appeal a decision of the Heritage Council, and section 162 of the QHA states that an appeal can only be made on the ground the "place" does not satisfy at least one of the "cultural heritage criteria" which is defined as the criteria contained in section 35 of the QHA (see [2] and [49]).

Under section 173 of the QHA, the Chief Executive published a guideline titled "Assessing cultural heritage significance" (Guideline) which both parties referred to extensively in the proceedings (at [56]). The Court accepted that the Guideline is relevant, however that it should be approached with "considerable caution" citing inconsistencies and stating that "[t]he Guideline is after all, just that – it is a 'guideline'" (at [58]). Inconsistencies included defining words by reference to the Macquarie Dictionary where the term has already been defined in the QHA, and stating a method for determining cultural heritage significance that does not appear in section 35 of the QHA (at [57]).

The Court noted that the statement of significance submitted with the entry of the Place in the Register, as required by section 31(3)(e) of the QHA, is an important document in the appeal (Statement of Significance) (at [61]). The Court also noted that is "…open for the Court…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 [S]tatement of [S]ignificance" (at [61]).

The Court considered the following four issues (at [62]):

1. Is the Place important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland's history?

2. Is the Place important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural place?

3. Is the Place important because of its aesthetic significance?

4. Should the Place be included in the Register in the exercise of the discretion under section 53 of the QHA?

As the Court concluded that the Place does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria in section 35(1) of the QHA, the Court found it unnecessary to deal with the discretion issue in issue four above (at [64]).

This issue related to section 35(1)(a) of the QHA.

The Court noted that the Place is an example of a mid-1950 modernist church in Queensland, which expresses a soft or transitional aesthetic (at [68]).

The Court assessed the importance of this criterion in regard to the following four factors emphasised by the Heritage Council (at [69]):

1. The Place is highly intact.

2. The Place is the first modernist Methodist church constructed in Queensland.

3. The Place has influenced the design of Methodist churches and churches constructed for a range of Christian denominations.

4. The Place demonstrates community involvement in, and commemoration of, major world events.

The Court was satisfied that the external appearance of the Place could be described as highly intact, but was not so satisfied with respect to the internal presentation of the Place (at [70]). The Court noted that the Place was no longer identifiable as a former Methodist church due to the removal of fittings and furniture when the church ceased use in 2019 (see [13] and [70]).

The Court noted that on the evidence presented to it that there were three modernist churches constructed prior to the Place, which explains why the Heritage Council contended the Place is the first modernist "Methodist" church (see [74] to [75]). The Court noted that there were a number of Methodist churches constructed in Queensland during 1956 which each exhibit modern design elements (see [77] to [78]).

The Court concluded that the Place does not "…[stand] out as a marker, or point of transition from traditional to modern Methodist church design…", and further "…that the timing of construction of the Place [does not have] any particular import when considered in the context of the evolution of the contemporary church design" (at [79]).

The Court accepted that the Place may have influenced subsequent Methodist churches, however that this alone does not satisfy the assessment of "importance" (at [80]).

The Court noted that the commemoration or memorialisation of World War I and II is not a strong feature of the building fabric of the Place (at [81]). Further, the Court noted that for the time, it was not uncommon for a facility, such as a new church, to be identified as a memorial to raise money to finance construction, which also allowed for tax relief to be obtained where a facility was a memorial (at [81]).

The Court was satisfied that the Place did not meet the cultural heritage criterion in section 35(1)(a) of the QHA.

This issue related to section 35(1)(d) of the QHA.

The Court accepted that a church is a particular class of cultural place (at [92]). The Heritage Council contended that the particular class of cultural place of relevance is a "1950s modernist church" (at [92]).

The "principal characteristics" of the cultural place identified in the Statement of Significance includes a combination of building fabric, fixtures, and fittings (at [93]). The evidence of an architecture expert confirmed that fixtures and furniture were equally as important as the exterior of the Place and its design (at [93]).

For the earlier reasons given about the Place not being "entirely intact" by reference to the removal of fixtures and furniture from the internal of the Place, the Court was not satisfied the importance of the "principal characteristics" of the Place is satisfied (at [98]).

The Court was satisfied that the Place did not meet the cultural heritage criterion in section 35(1)(d) of the QHA.

This issue related to section 35(1)(e) of the QHA.

The phrase "aesthetic significance" is defined in the schedule of the QHA as "…of a place or artefact, includes visual merit or interest". The Statement of Significance provides that aesthetic importance is derived from its architectural qualities (at [103]).

The Court did not accept the Heritage Council's submissions that the architectural qualities of the Place are expressive of "Methodism's expansionist outlook post-World War II" or "…a desire to remain relevant to Queensland society at the time" (see [103] to [104]). The Court noted that the architectural qualities of the Place are found in numerous churches constructed in the 1950s, and architecture expert evidence opined that the Place is a "…commonplace example of a 1950s modernist church" (at [104]).

The Court was satisfied that the place does not meet the cultural heritage criterion in section 35(1)(e) of the QHA.

The Court was satisfied that the Church does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria stated in section 35(1) of the QHA, and that the power to enter the Church in the Register is therefore not engaged (at [5]). The Court removed the Place from the Register.