Zuo v City of Ryde Council [2017] NSWLEC 1665

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zuo v City of Ryde Council [2017] NSWLEC 1665 Hearing dates: 16 November 2017 Date of orders: 24 November 2017 Decision date: 24 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Brown C Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Development Application No. LDA2016/0420 for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy at 40 Miriam Road, Denistone is refused. 3. The exhibits are returned with the exception of exhibit 4. Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: demolition of all existing structures and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy; whether existing dwelling should be demolished; whether proposed design acceptable Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kuang Zuo (Applicant) City of Ryde Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr V Conomos, solicitor (Applicant) Mr B Stephen, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors: Conomos Legal (Applicant) City of Ryde Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/192103 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. This is an appeal against the refusal of Development Application No. LDA2016/0420 for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy at 40 Miriam Road, Denistone (the site). 2. The council maintains that the proposed development should be refused because: * the existing dwelling should not be demolished because of its heritage qualities, and * the proposed design of the development does not respect the heritage qualities of the area, particularly the adjoining heritage item. 1. A number of local residents provided evidence on the site inspection and supported the reasons proposed by the council. 2. The appeal was subject to mandatory conciliation and arbitration on 16 November 2017 under s 34AA of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. As no agreement was reached, the conciliation conference was terminated pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b), and the proceedings dealt with forthwith pursuant to s 34AA(2) b)(i) and on the basis of what occurred at the conciliation conference pursuant to s 34AA(2)(b)(ii). 3. The parties proposed, and the Court agreed that it was not necessary for any cross examination of the expert witnesses.