Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2009-12-23

For the reasons set out above, our findings are that:
- at a general level, we consider that the location of the sign vis-à-vis traffic approaching the intersection from the north is fairly benevolent;
- we accept that several additional straightforward conditions should be added to the existing permit;
- we are comfortable that some degree of dynamic images on the sign is a reasonable planning outcome that will not cause any undue road safety risk; but
- we are unconvinced that allowing full animation on the sign is an acceptable planning outcome. Hence we have rejected the proposal by Octopus to allow some degree of full animation on this sign.

APPENDIX - DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING PLANNING PERMIT NO. 2004/320

* the following new conditions are inserted in their place:

"6. In relation to the images displayed on the sign:

(a) any one image must be presented in a completely static manner, but there can be a rotation of such static images, provided that such rotation cannot be quicker than one new image per two seconds;

(b) in relation to any one product or item being promoted by the sign, the images associated with that one product or item must as a group run for at least 15 seconds;

(c) the sign must not display advertising or messages which contain fully animated or video/movie style advertising or messages; and

(d) the sign must not be used for any live television, satellite, internet or similar broadcast.

The images displayed on the sign must not otherwise unreasonably dazzle or distract drivers due to their colouring and must not be capable of being mistaken:

(a) for a traffic signal because it has, for example, red, amber or green circles, octagons, crosses or triangles;

(b) as text providing road safety instructions to drivers.

(b) advertising or messages which contain any repeated directional motion, flicker or flashing content;

(d) images using an unreasonably high intensity of light in the sign.

The expiry date for this permit shall be 15 years from the date that the permit was issued."

[1] We are thinking here of that dashing Australian opener and skilful fields person, Rick Darling.

[2] Octopus Media Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2004] VCAT 2304.

[3] We refer here to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report into driver inattention. One its findings was that "The analysis of eye-glance behaviour indicates that total eyes-off road durations of greater than 2 seconds significantly increased individual near-crash/crash risk whereas eye-glance durations less than 2 seconds did not significantly increase risk relative to normal, baseline driving".

VicRoads v Bayside CC [2009] VCAT 2734 (23 December 2009)

VicRoads v Bayside CC [2009] VCAT 2734

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (19 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

VicRoads v Bayside CC [2009] VCAT 2734 (23 December 2009)