Roden v Bandora Holdings Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned the construction of an environmental planning instrument and whether a proposed development constituted prohibited development. The parties were the appellant, Roden, and the first respondent, Bandora Holdings Pty Ltd, with the appeal heard by McColl, Basten, and Payne JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the validity of development consent granted by Byron Shire Council for a rural tourist facility, which the appellant argued was a prohibited use.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether a wedding function venue was a permissible use under the relevant planning instrument, and whether the definition of "tourist facilities" was exclusive of "rural tourist facility". The court was also required to consider the interpretation of the term "recreation" as it appeared in different provisions of the same instrument and the appropriate relief to be granted following a successful challenge to the validity of development consent, specifically concerning the operative date of invalidity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Land and Environment Court. The court reasoned that the planning instrument's provisions indicated that "rural tourist facility" was an innominate permissible use, and that the definition of "tourist facilities" was not intended to be exhaustive. The court found that the term "recreation" had different meanings in the two provisions under consideration, and that the development consent was invalid. Consequently, the court declared the development consent invalid and of no effect, ordered the first respondent to pay the appellant's costs in both the Land and Environment Court and the Court of Appeal, and remitted the matter to the Land and Environment Court for any consequential relief.