notable example of Late Modern architecture not only in Canberra, but also in Australia as a whole. The Tribunal has noted previously the testimony of Mr Metcalf that the specificity of the former AAA building more relevant than the claim that it “is has status from the assertion that it belongs to any stylistic The category.” evidence before the Tribunal is nevertheless that the characteristics of Late Modern architecture in Australia are present in the former AAA building at a very high level of competence and integrity. The Tribunal finds that the former AAA building is a notable example of Late Modern architecture and that it demonstrates the main characteristics of that style. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the former AAA building meets the requirements of criterion (g) for registration as a place of heritage significance. As the applicant correctly states, meeting one of the criteria does not mandate registration; it simply enables it. The Heritage Council argues that the refusal to decide to register a place which is of heritage significance should be rare having regard to section 3(2)(a) of the Heritage Act. Section 18(a) of the Act also provides that it is a function of the Council to conserve places with cultural heritage significance, and section 18(b) to encourage the registration of heritage places. The applicant argues that if the discretion under section 40(2) arises, it should be exercised to decide not to register the Building. No basis for doing so is set out in the statement of facts and contentions. Given that the criterion applicant’s is in the view met, the Tribunal does not see a basis for deciding not Tribunal’s to register. The Tribunal therefore decides to register the Building. ..................................... Senior Member R Pegrum for and on behalf of the Tribunal HEARING DETAILS
notable example of Late Modern architecture not only in Canberra, but also in Australia as a whole. The Tribunal has noted previously the testimony of Mr Metcalf that the specificity of the former AAA building “is more relevant than the claim that it has status from the assertion that it belongs to any stylistic category.” The evidence before the Tribunal is nevertheless that the characteristics of Late Modern architecture in Australia are present in the former AAA building at a very high level of competence and integrity. The Tribunal finds that the former AAA building is a notable example of Late Modern architecture and that it demonstrates the main characteristics of that style. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the former AAA building meets the requirements of criterion (g) for registration as a place of heritage significance. As the applicant correctly states, meeting one of the criteria does not mandate registration; it simply enables it. The Heritage Council argues that the refusal to decide to register a place which is of heritage significance should be rare having regard to section 3(2)(a) of the Heritage Act. Section 18(a) of the Act also provides that it is a function of the Council to conserve places with cultural heritage significance, and section 18(b) to encourage the registration of heritage places. The applicant argues that if the discretion under section 40(2) arises, it should be exercised to decide not to register the Building. No basis for doing so is set out in the applicant’s statement of facts and contentions. Given that the criterion is in the Tribunal’s view met, the Tribunal does not see a basis for deciding not to register. The Tribunal therefore decides to register the Building. ..................................... Senior Member R Pegrum for and on behalf of the Tribunal HEARING DETAILS
212_northbourne_pty_limited_v_act_heritage_council_anor_administrative_review_2016_acat_30.docx