Stock saleyard removed from the Queensland Heritage Register for failing to meet criteria for cultural heritage significance

In brief

The case of Scenic Rim Regional Council v Queensland Heritage Council [2022] QPEC 42 concerned an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) by the Scenic Rim Regional Council (Council) against a decision of the Queensland Heritage Council (QHC) to enter the Beaudesert Pig and Cattle Saleyard (Saleyard) onto the Queensland Heritage Register (Register) as a State Heritage Place under section 53 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) (Act). The Council argued that the Saleyard did not satisfy any of the cultural heritage criteria and ought not be listed on the Register.

The Court considered the following four questions having regard to the relevant cultural heritage criteria under section 35(1) of the Act:

• Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history? (see section 35(1)(a) of the Act).

• Does the Saleyard demonstrate rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage? (see section 35(1)(b) of the Act).

• Is the Saleyard important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places? (see section 35(1)(d) of the Act).

• Does the Saleyard have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons? (see section 35(1)(g) of the Act).

Whilst it was not binding on the Court, the Court referred to the guideline Assessing cultural heritage significance: Using the cultural heritage criteria (Guideline) to guide its decision making.

The Court answered no to each question and held that none of the criteria for inclusion on the Register are met. The Court set aside the decision of the QHC and replaced it with a decision not to enter the Saleyard on the Register.

Background

The Saleyard was constructed in the early 1960s and remained operational until its closure in March 2021. In January 2021, the QHC entered the Saleyard onto the Register.

The Council was given notice of the QHC's decision and subsequently commenced the appeal, which it had a right to do under section 161(1)(a) of the Act as an owner of the Saleyard.

If a place satisfies one or more of the criteria provided in section 35(1) of the Act, then the QHC has a broad discretion under section 51 and section 53 of the Act when deciding whether or not to enter the place on the Register. However, if a place does not satisfy any of the criteria in section 35(1) of the Act, then the place must not be entered onto the Register.

The Council argued that the Saleyard does not satisfy the cultural heritage criteria in section 35(1)(a), section 35(1)(b), section 35(1)(d), and section 35(1)(g) of the Act, meaning that the QHC ought not list the Saleyard on the Register. The Council bore the onus of establishing that the Saleyard does not satisfy the criteria according to the common law principles stated in the case of Enco Precast Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors [2022] QCA 94 (see [20] to [22]).

Criterion in section 35(1)(a) – Saleyard not important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history

The parties agreed that the Saleyard is the only surviving saleyard remaining from a large complex of saleyards at the Beaudesert Railway Station. The key dispute related to the importance of the Saleyard in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history.

With reference to the Guideline, the Court noted that the word "important" should be interpreted broadly and that a place may still be important even where it does not fully demonstrate the evolution of Queensland's history (at [46]).

The experts agreed on the historical context of the Saleyard throughout the 20th century, including the major economic contribution of the pig and dairy industry to Queensland, the booming sales of pigs and calves, and the impact of World War II on the industry (at [101]).

The QHC argued that the Saleyard is important evidence of the dairy and pig producing industries in Queensland at the time. However, the expert for the Council disagreed and argued that the Saleyard is not evidence of the history of the industry in Beaudesert for several reasons including that the overall pig trade was larger in other Queensland towns, saleyards were not rare, the Saleyard was constructed well after the period of peak pig production, and the Saleyard is not distinctive or exceptional.

After considering the historical context of the Saleyard throughout the 20th century, the Court held that criterion (a) was not satisfied because the Saleyard is not important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of Queensland’s history (at [122]).

Criterion in section 35(1)(b) – Saleyard does not demonstrate rare, uncommon, or endangered aspects of Queensland’s cultural heritage

The Court referenced the Guideline which states that a place may be significant under this criterion if it demonstrates a way of life, custom, function, land use, etc. that is now rare or uncommon. Factors such as the intactness, integrity, distinctiveness, and exceptionality may be relevant when establishing the level of significance (see [125] to [126]).

The QHC argued that the Saleyard is a largely intact surviving example of the saleyards which were once common in Queensland and have now become uncommon. The Council argued that the Saleyard is not rare or uncommon because nine out of forty saleyards still remain and because pig and calf saleyards are not an aspect of Queensland’s cultural heritage.

The Court held that the Saleyard does not satisfy criterion (b) because it does not demonstrate an aspect of Queensland’s cultural heritage, nor was the Saleyard rare (at [150]).

Criterion in section 35(1)(d) – Saleyard not important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of cultural places

The Court referenced the Guideline which states that a place must demonstrate "significance in the fabric" and may be significant where it has made a strong contribution to Queensland’s history. The Guideline also states that a cultural place is a place associated with human activity (see [154] to [155]).

The QHC’s expert stated that a pig and calf saleyard associated with the dairy industry is a class of cultural place however the Court noted that the expert did not provide evidence to support this opinion. The Council argued that the Saleyard does not demonstrate any cultural significance as it lacks distinctive characteristics, and saleyards are not recognised as a class of cultural place.

The Court was not convinced that pig and calf saleyards are a class of cultural place, or that they are otherwise important. In particular, the Court found that there was a lack of relevant evidence from the QHC and it had failed to identify a "range of human activity" which took place at the saleyards to make them a class of cultural place, and thus criterion (d) was not satisfied (at [176]).

Criterion in section 35(1)(g) – Saleyard does not have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group

The Court referenced the Guideline which states that that there will be a strong or special association where a place has a "perceived meaning or symbolic, spiritual, or moral value that is important to a particular community or cultural group and which generates a strong sense of attachment" and that there should also be a readily defined group (see [179] to [181]).

The QHC argued that the Saleyard had been used as a frequent meeting place for livestock sales, an event which became embedded in the life of the community, meaning that it had a long and special association with the Beaudesert farming community. The Court also received lay witness statements which were largely in support of including the Saleyard on the Register.

The Court approached the submissions with caution and held that criterion (g) had not been satisfied as no "readily identifiable community" had been identified (at [233]).

Conclusion

Given that the Saleyard did not satisfy any of the cultural heritage criteria under section 35(1) of the Act, the Court set aside the decision of the QHC and ordered it to be replaced with a decision not to enter the Saleyard on the Register.