Calarco v Liverpool City Council

The plaintiffs, Calarco, sought relief from the court against Liverpool City Council, challenging the council's decision to apply a hardship application to only a portion of their property. The property in question was zoned partly as “public recreation” and partly as “infrastructure - local drainage”. The plaintiffs argued that the council's decision was incorrect as it failed to consider the entire property under the hardship application. The court was required to determine whether the land zoned as “infrastructure - local drainage” qualified as land reserved for “any other purpose that is prescribed as a public purpose” under section 26(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The legal issues central to this case were whether the land designated as “infrastructure - local drainage” fell within the scope of section 26(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and, if so, whether this classification entitled the plaintiffs to the full relief under the hardship application. The court examined the relevant legislation and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006, specifically Appendix 8, to ascertain whether the land in question was indeed prescribed as a public purpose. The court found that the land was indeed prescribed as such, and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to the full relief under the hardship application.

The court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the policy documents. It concluded that the land in question was indeed reserved for a public purpose, as outlined in Appendix 8 of the State Environmental Planning Policy. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to the full relief under the hardship application. The court then made orders accordingly, ensuring that the plaintiffs received the appropriate compensation for their property.