The Tribunal finds that Criterion 10(d) of the Act is not satisfied.

Does the place have strong or special associations with a person, group, event, development or cultural phase in local or national history? (Criterion 10(h))

1. The Applicants argued that the school meets this criterion because it has strong or special associations with Enrico Taglietti, John Flynn and George Simpson, who are important in local and national history. They also argued that there is a strong or special association with the introduction of open-plan learning in the ACT, which may be considered to be a development or cultural phase in local history.

1. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Taglietti is an eminent architect, who is considered important in the history of architecture in Canberra and indeed nationally. The issue is whether there is a strong or special association between the school and Mr Taglietti, bearing in mind that the school is one of several hundred buildings designed by Mr Taglietti. This criterion does not contemplate the merits of the school as architecture but only the association with a person, group etc.

2. The school was not the first school designed by Mr Taglietti in the ACT; that was Latham. It was the first that he designed to meet open-plan requirements, but in a transitional form. Giralang was the first and only school that he designed in fully developed open-plan form. Mr Taglietti's experience in designing the school was no doubt helpful to him in acquiring the experience and skills necessary for the design of Giralang, which is recognised as a very significant architectural achievement. The essential links between the school and Mr Taglietti are that he designed it, supervised its construction and visited it from time to time to talk to students about his design. None of these links could be described as strong or special, for if they were every one of his buildings would satisfy the association test and require registration.
3. The Tribunal has concluded therefore that there is no strong or special association between the school and Enrico Taglietti.

1. The Applicants argued that a strong or special association exists principally because of the existence of the national memorial to John Flynn; the dedication of the adjoining park to George Simpson, the installation of a commemorative plaque and the large range of curricular and extra-curricular activities relating to John Flynn and George Simpson, including those relating to the RFDS. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr Pearson that these associations are commemorative in nature rather than substantive and direct.

2. The Tribunal accepts that John Flynn is a person in national history. It notes that John Flynn died in 1951, long before the suburb of Flynn and the school came into existence. The Tribunal accepts that the suburb of Flynn was named after John Flynn in order to commemorate him and his achievements, and the school was named after the suburb. There is, however, no physical or historical connection between the suburb or the school and the life of John Flynn. In the Tribunal's view this creates difficulties for establishing the heritage significance of a place, if as is ordinarily understood, this refers to a place that is significant because of connections during the person's lifetime, i.e. where a person important in history was born or lived, undertook major work or where their contribution to history took place. The Tribunal doubts that George Simpson is a person in national history. When Flynn was gazetted as a Division on

9 September 1971 (T258-262), 65 members of the RDFS and the Australian Inland were selected to have streets named after them. Dr Simpson was not included in that list, which must raise questions about his historical significance. However, even if one accepts that he is a person in national history, there is, for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to John Flynn, no strong or special association between the school and Mr Simpson. Neither John Flynn nor George Simpson is a figure in local history.

3. In this regard the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Dr Pearson who explained in detail how these associations were assessed by the Council and what matters were considered relevant. The Tribunal also notes that Mr Charlton stated that there are special associations between the school and John Flynn, but that that they are not high enough for the school to have heritage value for those associations alone (T122). Mr Freeman only touched briefly on the question.

4. The Tribunal has concluded therefore that there is no strong or special association between the school and John Flynn and his colleague George Simpson.

The Applicants argue that there is a strong or special association between the school and the introduction of open-plan education in the ACT because it was the first to be designed to meet open-plan learning objectives and requirements. The Respondent does not dispute that this was the first school to be purpose built for open-plan learning.

Mr Taglietti is reluctant to accept the description of the school as one that combines elements of open-plan design with more traditional elements. The NCDC brief for the school however said that the open-plan concept was being introduced in a 'transitionary form, retaining portions of the traditional school, but adapting portions of the building in line with the new concept'. Mr Taglietti said that he designed the school to respond to the brief, and there was no evidence that the school as built did not correspond to the NCDC's stated intentions and description.

The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr Pearson that the open-plan phase of education in the ACT was a short-lived phase during the 1970s and that there were some 11 schools that, in varying degrees, incorporated elements of open-plan design. Mr Freeman did not deal with this matter. The evidence, based on the record of the Taskforce meeting with Alan Foskett and his history of ACT education, is that in the early part of the 1970s open-plan design was being introduced into several ACT schools by adapting and remodelling parts of those schools. The school was not therefore the first school to incorporate open-plan design, and it was only one of several that did so.

It is not disputed that the introduction of open-plan learning in the ACT constitutes a 'development or cultural phase'. The issue is whether the school has a strong or special association with that development or phase In this regard, the Tribunal has taken the view that the open-plan development or cultural phase refers to a philosophy of education, which is facilitated by a particular form of architecture. The school was not the first to adopt open-plan learning, nor was it the last. Nor can it be said to be the best, as that honour belongs to Giralang. The school has some significance as the first purpose-built school incorporating open-plan elements. But the transitional and incomplete form of the open-plan design undermines the strength of the association.

The Tribunal considers therefore that there is no strong or special association between the school and open-plan education in the ACT.

In light of the foregoing the Tribunal has concluded that this criterion is not met.

1. In their application to the Tribunal, the Applicants claimed there were eight criteria on which the Council should have found, on reasonable grounds, the place may have heritage significance. At the hearing the Applicants pursued criteria 10(b), 10(d) and 10(h) only. The Tribunal has given its decision against those three criteria above that it is not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the place may have heritage significance. The Tribunal has also considered the remaining criteria in the light of the relevant evidence and is not satisfied on reasonable grounds that the place may have heritage significance under any of these criteria.

2. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

COUNSEL APPEARING: APPLICANT: Mr Clynes, O'Connor Harris

FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION ( )