The Tribunal does not think that the Council has demonstrated that the Building meets this criterion. The Building is evidence of the Late Modern style, it may be important as evidence, but on balance the Tribunal does not think that the evidence supports a finding that the Late Modern style is of exceptional, that is extraordinary, interest. I. Criterion (g) notable example Criterion (g) requires that the Building is: (a) a notable example, (b) of a kind of place or object, and (c) demonstrates the main characteristics of that kind. is not defined in the Heritage Act. The Macquarie Dictionary online ‘Notable’ defines it as worthy of note or notice; noteworthy: a notable success 2. “1. prominent, important, or distinguished, as The Shorter Oxford persons”. Dictionary also refers to Worthy or deserving of and on “1. note” adds “esp. account of excellence, value, or importance; remarkable, striking An eminent.” example which is worthy of note or notice for positive reasons, such as its importance, is required. This is a lower test than The Tribunal is ‘exceptional’. of the view that any one of the criteria can provide heritage significance, and that the terms of criterion (a) are not a basis for reading down other criteria, such as criterion (g). The decision of the Heritage Council stated that the Building is an example of the Late Modern Style, in particular because the shape of the building is determined by simple geometry, and the use of an aluminium curtain wall. The Council stated that it is a notable example because the design extends the style a supremely simple and elegant form and finish, expressing not just a “with high-tech quality but also considerable design skill.” I.1 Kind of place As noted above, the Tribunal is of the view that it is appropriate to treat the Building as of the Late Modern style, and that this is the relevant of ‘kind Mr Metcalf stated that in his view the of was an office place.’ ‘kind place’ building. The Tribunal does not think that Mr is the appropriate way Metcalf’s
The Tribunal does not think that the Council has demonstrated that the Building meets this criterion. The Building is evidence of the Late Modern style, it may be important as evidence, but on balance the Tribunal does not think that the evidence supports a finding that the Late Modern style is of exceptional, that is extraordinary, interest. I. Criterion (g) notable example Criterion (g) requires that the Building is: (a) a notable example, (b) of a kind of place or object, and (c) demonstrates the main characteristics of that kind. ‘Notable’ is not defined in the Heritage Act. The Macquarie Dictionary online defines it as “1. worthy of note or notice; noteworthy: a notable success 2. prominent, important, or distinguished, as persons”. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary also refers to “1. Worthy or deserving of note” and adds “esp. on account of excellence, value, or importance; remarkable, striking eminent.” An example which is worthy of note or notice for positive reasons, such as its importance, is required. This is a lower test than ‘exceptional’. The Tribunal is of the view that any one of the criteria can provide heritage significance, and that the terms of criterion (a) are not a basis for reading down other criteria, such as criterion (g). The decision of the Heritage Council stated that the Building is an example of the Late Modern Style, in particular because the shape of the building is determined by simple geometry, and the use of an aluminium curtain wall. The Council stated that it is a notable example because the design extends the style “with a supremely simple and elegant form and finish, expressing not just a high-tech quality but also considerable design skill.” I.1 Kind of place As noted above, the Tribunal is of the view that it is appropriate to treat the Building as of the Late Modern style, and that this is the relevant ‘kind of place.’ Mr Metcalf stated that in his view the ‘kind of place’ was an office building. The Tribunal does not think that Mr Metcalf’s is the appropriate way
212_northbourne_pty_limited_v_act_heritage_council_anor_administrative_review_2016_acat_30.docx