Ms Susan Brennan of counsel, instructed by Norton Rose Lawyers. She called the following expert witnesses -

• Mr James Brownlie, traffic engineer, Sustainable Transport Surveys Pty Ltd
• Dr Stephen Cloete, human factors consultant, Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland

Mr Nicholas Tweedie of counsel, instructed by Herbert Geer Lawyers. The Respondent filed a statement of evidence prepared by -

• Ms Deborah Donald, traffic engineer, O'Brien Traffic

At the hearing on 12 February 2013, Mr Tweedie withdrew the statement and, accordingly, Ms Donald was not called to give evidence or be examined.

Electronic promotion sign & internally illuminated promotion sign

The electronic promotion sign in the endorsed plans measures 3.1 m by 3.8 m (an area of 11.8 sq m). The internally illuminated promotion sign measures 1.5 m by 0.55 m (0.8 sq m). Both signs are on the first floor wall of the two-storey building facing south-east into Camberwell Junction and do not project above the top of the wall. The lower sign is the electronic promotion sign, the lowest part of which is fixed about 8.3 m above the footpath. The proposed sign will replace an internally illuminated (non-electronic) promotion sign of similar dimensions in roughly the same place. There are no conditions on the permit for that sign that controls light levels. The sign has not been erected.

Application under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to amend Permit no. PP11/00788 issued on 22 August 2012

The land fronts Burke Road and Camberwell Road at Camberwell Junction, which are both Road Zone Category 1 roads

The display of a promotion sign if the total advertising area of all signs exceeds 8 sq m and, if in the case of a replacement of an advertisement of an internally illuminated sign, the advertisement area is increased

The display of an electronic sign within 60 m of an arterial road declared under the Road Management Act 2004 must be referred to the Roads Corporation. Burke Road, Camberwell Road and Riversdale Road are arterial roads.

Clauses 10, 11, 15, 17, 21.08, 22.01, 22.02, 52.05, 65 & 66

The land is an angled site on the north side of Camberwell Junction between Burke Road and Camberwell Road. The wall of the two-storey building on the land on which the signs are to be located faces south-east into Camberwell Junction. The building has shops at ground level and offices at first floor level. Apart from signage on ground level shop windows and verandah fascia signs, there are five signs above the verandah, facing either Burke Road or Camberwell Road or the junction itself. There is an existing 9 sq m internally illuminated sign that will be replaced by the proposed sign.

Octopus Media Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2012] VCAT 350

1. Octopus Media Pty Ltd (Octopus Media) proposes to construct and display an electronic promotion sign and an internally illuminated promotion sign at Camberwell Junction, an intersection of three major roads (Burke Road, Camberwell Road and Riversdale Road) in Melbourne's inner east.
2. In recent years, some proposed electronic promotion signs along major roads have been subject of Tribunal proceedings. In some of these proceedings the municipal council (as responsible authority) has refused a permit because VicRoads (as a referral authority for the permit application) has objected to the grant of a permit.
3. This proceeding is different because Boroondara City Council (the Council) granted a permit for the sign at Camberwell Junction. VicRoads originally applied to the Tribunal to cancel the permit but has amended its application and now seeks to amend the conditions of the permit. VicRoads' grounds for its application to amend the permit are the Council's failure to comply with s 61(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the PE Act) and material mistakes made by the Council in relation to the grant of a permit.
4. It is unusual for a referral authority to apply to amend the conditions of a permit because, under the legislative scheme, a referral authority may require a responsible authority to include conditions if it decides to grant a permit.[1]
5. The background to these unusual circumstances concerns the provision of further information by Octopus Media to the Council and VicRoads about the permit application. These circumstances are examined shortly in these reasons.
6. This proceeding raises questions about further information requests, powers and functions of a referral authority, and grounds for amending a permit under the PE Act.
7. My main finding is that the grounds to enliven the Tribunal's jurisdiction to amend the permit have not been made out. I have therefore decided to refuse the Application. My reasons follow.

1. I will not refer to these provisions in detail. Relevantly, the Council must consider the impact of a sign on road safety. The decision guidelines in the scheme include -

• Obstructs a driver's line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an adjacent property.
• Obstructs a driver's view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background which might reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.
• Could dazzle or distract drivers due to its size, design or colouring, or it being illuminated, reflective, animated or flashing.
• Is at a location where particular concentration is required, such as a high pedestrian volume intersection.[2]

1. This proceeding arises out of confusion and disagreement about the quality of the further information provided by Octopus Media about the permit application. The relevant facts are as follows.
2. The Council required Octopus Media to provide more information under s 54 of the PE Act. Shortly afterwards, it referred the permit application to VicRoads as a referral authority for the permit application.
3. VicRoads told the Council it required more information from Octopus Media to assess the permit application and respond to the Council. In summary, it sought information about vehicle transit times through the Junction, a visual representation of paths through the Junction where the sign is in the peripheral vision or view cone of a driver, and a human cognitive assessment of the sign's impact on driver behaviour. The Council conveyed this request as another further information request to Octopus Media under s 54 of the PE Act.
4. Octopus Media then amended the permit application in response to the Council's request for more information. The Council referred the amended permit application to VicRoads. VicRoads again told the Council it required more information of the same type. The Council again conveyed this request to Octopus Media as a final more information request under s 54 of the PE Act.
5. Octopus Media applied to the Tribunal to review the final more information request In Octopus Media,[3] the Tribunal varied the more information requirement. The applicant was required to prepare intersection plans showing where the sign may be in the peripheral vision of a driver or within a driver's view cone, together with estimated potential/likely driver exposure to peripheral and direct views of the sign were required. The Tribunal refused to require the human cognitive assessment.
6. Octopus Media provided the Council and VicRoads with this information by the due date in a report prepared by O'Brien Traffic (the OBT report). VicRoads' subsequent response to the Council relevantly provided -

VicRoads considers the report provided has not addressed the items specified in the VCAT order. ...

You are advised that VicRoads cannot proceed any further with the consideration of this application and VicRoads suggest that the application should lapse as per item 2 of the VCAT order.

1. The Council's planner internally referred the OBT report to its engineers for comment and the engineers again did not oppose the grant of a permit. These comments were included in the planner's report that recommended to the Council's delegate that a permit be granted. The planner's report expressed the view that the Council could decide the permit application because 28 days had passed since Council's second referral to VicRoads and it had not objected to the grant of a permit.
2. The delegate granted the permit. The permit included twelve conditions. Condition 4(a) requires a minimum of a five-second image 'dwell time'. It provides -

Any one image must be presented in a completely static manner, but there can be a change of such static images, provided that such change cannot be quicker than one new image per five (5) seconds.

1. VicRoads requests conditions 4, 5, 8 & 9 be amended, conditions 7 & 11 be omitted, and new conditions 9, 11, 12 & 13 be inserted into the permit.
2. I will not include the details of these changes in these reasons, other than to record that one of the main changes is an amendment of condition 4(a) to increase the minimum image 'dwell time' from five seconds to eighteen seconds.

1. VicRoads alleges the Council failed to comply with s 61(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Under this section, if a referral authority 'objects' to the grant of a permit, a Responsible Authority must refuse to grant a permit.
2. Section 56(1)(c) provides that a referral authority may tell a responsible authority in writing that 'it objects to the grant of a permit on any specified ground'. This section is important because it does not require a referral authority to do anything after considering an application. It 'may' either not object to the grant of a permit, not object if specified conditions are included, or object to the grant of a permit. It may also just give the responsible authority 'its comments on the application'.[4] The option of merely providing comments is confirmed by s 60(1)(d) of the PE Act.
3. Did VicRoads object to the grant of a permit? Was VicRoads entitled to assume the Council would treat VicRoads' correspondence as an objection?
4. The parties submitted an objection for the purposes of s 56(1) and s 61(2) of the PE Act has not yet been specifically analysed by the Tribunal or the Supreme Court.
5. In Spurling,[5] the Court held that an objection to the grant of a permit by a person affected, for the purposes of what is now s 57 of the PE Act, must meet certain 'minimum requirements' including containing 'an expression of opposition'.[6] In O'Donohue,[7] again in the context of what is now s 57, the Court considered whether a Commonwealth government department had objected when it stated in writing that the development 'should not proceed'. The Court held that a person does not need to use the word 'object' to constitute an objection ... if what is written conveys that what is sought be done pursuant to the permit is objected to'.[8] In that case, the person, a Commonwealth department, stated in writing that the development 'should not proceed'.
6. The principle in Spurling is relevant to an objection from a referral authority because the identity of the objector was not material in that decision and because the Court later applied the principle in O'Donohue in the context of a response from a government department.
7. VicRoads is a referral authority and not a mere objector. VicRoads' objection has more serious consequences under the PE Act than a mere objector because VicRoads' objection requires the responsible authority to refuse a permit. This warrants a stricter application of the Spurling principle.
8. There is no 'expression of opposition' in VicRoads' statement that 'it cannot proceed any further' with considering the application. If VicRoads intended to object then it should have clearly expressed its opposition to the grant of a permit. It was not difficult to state it 'objects'. If VicRoads did intend to object, VicRoads also failed to include the grounds on which it objected, as required by s 56(1)(c) of the PE Act.
9. As well, VicRoads' statement is ambiguous. It could mean that VicRoads had simply formed the view that the information Octopus Media provided was inadequate. It could mean that VicRoads did not wish to make any further response to the application. VicRoads' 'suggestion' that the application 'should lapse' could be mere comments on the application.[9] Section 56 of the PE Act does not provide for a referral authority to make suggestions or express views on the processing of an application.
10. The subjective intentions of VicRoads or its officers in its response to the Council were not relevant. Neither was VicRoads' assumption about what it meant or whether it was entitled to assume the Council would accept it as an objection.
11. I therefore find that VicRoads did not object to the grant of permit and the Council was not required to refuse to grant a permit. The Council did not fail to comply with s 61(2) of the PE Act.

1. The Tribunal may cancel or amend a permit if it considers there has been 'any material mistake in relation to the grant of the permit'.[10]
2. I do not intend to set out the principles in the relevant authorities. I simply observe the concept of mistake is wide and may involve errors of fact or law or, in certain circumstances, judgment. In relation to judgment, it cannot however be a mistake that a person may have made a different decision on the planning merits after weighing and considering the relevant competing considerations. If this was not the case, an application to amend a permit under s 87(1)(c) would amount to a de novo merits review. The decision must be one in which no reasonable person in the position of the decision maker could have made.
3. VicRoads' claimed the Council's mistakes were -
   • Assuming VicRoads did not object to the grant of a permit.
   • Deciding the application in the absence of a response from VicRoads about its position on the application.
   • Deciding the application without the confirmation from VicRoads that the required further information had been provided.
   • Concluding that the supplied further information was adequate.
   • Failing to consider the impact of the sign on road safety.
   • Failing to establish a proper basis for the five-second dwell time condition.
   • Deciding the application before Octopus Media provided the further information required.

1. I have already found that VicRoads' statement to the Council was not an objection. Therefore, this is not a relevant mistake of law.

1. This ground is weakened by it being contrary to VicRoads' primary submission that VicRoads' had objected.
2. However, there is no mistake or legal error in the Council not waiting for a response from VicRoads about whether or not it objected before deciding the application because the PE Act does not require a referral authority to make any response on a referred application or for a responsible authority to wait longer than the prescribed period for a response.

Deciding the application without the further information

1. VicRoads submits that the information Octopus Media was required to provide was information sought by VicRoads and the Council should not have decided the application until VicRoads was satisfied the information had been provided.
2. VicRoads has misunderstood the statutory framework for more information. A referral authority does not have to power to dictate the content of a further information request. If a referral authority needs further information, it must tell the responsible authority within 21 days what it needs.[11]
3. Section 54(1) of the PE Act provides that a responsible authority 'may' require an applicant to provide a referral authority with more information. It is therefore clear that a responsible authority has a discretion to require an applicant to provide a referral authority with more information. A referral authority has no power to direct an applicant to provide it with more information.
4. A responsible authority is in the coordinating position. It supervises the process consistent with its role as the primary or first instance decision-maker. It decides times to provide information and decides whether to extend time. A referral authority's inability to direct the content of a further information request is confirmed by the power of an applicant to apply to review 'a requirement by the responsible authority' (not referral authority) for more information.[12] It is also confirmed by the responsible authority (and not the referral authority) being empowered to 'require verification of ... any information provided under section 54 of the Act'.[13]
5. VicRoads submitted that, if a responsible authority decides an application without a referral authority first being satisfied of the quality of the further information it needed, it would 'undermine the role and expertise' of the referral authority. I disagree. If a referral authority is dissatisfied with the quality of the information, it can simply object to the grant of a permit on specified grounds. Those grounds might be that, without the specified information, VicRoads cannot properly assess the application and cannot be satisfied the sign will not be an unreasonable road safety risk.
6. A referral authority may not direct a responsible authority to refuse a permit without objecting on specified grounds and cannot assume the role of a responsible authority in deciding whether the application has lapsed.
7. That a referral authority should object if dissatisfied with the quality of further information is borne out by the unusual circumstances in this proceeding. VicRoads and the Council had different views about the quality of the information. It would be contrary to the principle of expedition in s 197 of the PE Act that a decision could be delayed while the two authorities tried to resolve their differences.
8. Hence, if a responsible authority decides to require further information needed by a referral authority, it does not come with an implied condition that what is supplied must be to the satisfaction of the referral authority. Likewise, no such condition can be implied when the further information requirement was resolved, as in this case, by the Tribunal on review.
9. It is no mistake or error of law to decide the application without confirmation from VicRoads that the further information was adequate. The PE Act does not require this confirmation.

1. VicRoads contends the Council made a material mistake in being satisfied the further information had been provided before deciding the application. VicRoads' main claim was that the OBT report contained no traffic engineering plans of the intersection showing where the sign could be in the peripheral vision or view cone of a driver. The OBT report included an aerial photograph of the intersection marked as showing where the sign could not be seen, could be partially seen and could be fully seen by a driver in all the relevant road approaches. It states that when the sign is fully legible to a driver, the sign is never in the driver's peripheral vision (except for the Burke Road north approach, where trees and poles obscure legibility) or view cone. The OBT report also included some photographs of the approaches.
2. The purpose of the requirement was to give the Council and VicRoads information about the points in the intersection when the sign will be in a driver's direct and peripheral line of sight.
3. The Council was required to exercise judgment about whether this information had been provided. Neither the scheme nor the requirement states what angles of driver vision constitute peripheral vision or being in a view cone. The OBT report relied on its own expertise and earlier research that peripheral vision constitutes vision within 20 degrees of the line of sight and a view cone is between 6 and 10 degree of the line of sight. The authors of the OBT report asked VicRoads about its definition of peripheral vision and view cone but VicRoads was not able to provide that definition. That VicRoads had not adopted a definition of these terms either at the relevant time for the authors or at the time of proceeding was not seriously contested by VicRoads.
4. VicRoads does not support the approach in the OBT report and supports a wider angle for peripheral vision. However, there is no established definition or one that VicRoads was able to give the permit applicant, and this confirms the matter remains one of judgment.
5. Although the Tribunal in its earlier reasons indicated a preference for traffic engineering drawings over video or photographs,[14] it is relevant that Mr Brownlie relied on photographs in his statement of evidence to establish from where the sign would be visible and agreed, in examination, that this was a satisfactory approach. Mr Brownlie did not rely on a stated definition of view cone or peripheral vision in deciding the extent of driver visibility and confirmed he was not given a definition by VicRoads in his instructions to prepare his statement.
6. Dr Cloete's statement does not rely on peripheral vision or view cones. He conceded that the distinction is 'largely unhelpful' for driver distraction analysis because, in part, it is based on an assumption that a driver cannot move his or her head. He told VicRoads that he did not agree with VicRoads' further information requirement about peripheral vision and view cones. He said he had been engaged by VicRoads to give evidence in a number of Tribunal proceedings since 2009 and agreed that from that date he had advised VicRoads that the concepts were unhelpful.
7. The OBT report was referred to and considered by the Council's engineers. They did not oppose the conclusions of the OBT report about visibility of the sign. The planner's report considered the engineers' report.
8. In summary, I do not find that the Council's consideration of and reliance on the OBT report about visibility of the sign was a mistake because it involved judgment about whether the information in the report met the requirement. The judgment was not unreasonable. Even if I am wrong about that, I find it was not a material mistake having regard to VicRoads' not having adopted its own definition about peripheral vision and view cone at all relevant times and having regard to Mr Brownlie's and Dr Cloete's evidence.

1. VicRoads claimed the Council failed to consider the complexity of the intersection, including high pedestrian movements, in deciding to grant a permit, as required under the decision guidelines.
2. Again, this is not a mistake of fact or law but an error of judgment in failing to satisfactorily take into account a relevant consideration.
3. The evidence is that the Council planner knew complexity of the Junction was a relevant consideration and expressly asked the Council's engineers to consider and report on it to the planner. The engineers considered and agreed with the intersection complexity analysis in the original OBT report submitted with the application. The planner's report considered road safety issues and, on intersection complexity, concluded that -

Whilst the six-ways junction is a very busy intersection for vehicles and pedestrians existing traffic controls aid in ensuring it is not confusing. For motorists approaching the junction from any direction only two (2) options are available - turning left, or driving straight through. Right turns are not permitted from any approach.

The applicant's submission indicates that pedestrian volumes are at their peak during daylight hours. At these times, the lux levels of the sign relative to the ambient background light will not be distracting to motorists, enabling them to safely focus on driving and remaining [cognisent] of pedestrians, trams and other motorists.

1. It was not unreasonable for the Council to conclude that the complexity of the intersection was such that there was no unreasonable road safety risk. The Council did not therefore make a material mistake in failing to consider this matter.

1. VicRoads claims the Council made a material mistake in including a five second dwell time condition that was not based on any empirical analysis and was based on its inclusion in three permits for similar signs in different municipal districts in recent years.
2. On the other hand, VicRoads adopts the Wachtel minimum distance display formula.[15] This is based on viewing distance and on speed limit and is designed to limit each passing motorist to a maximum of one display transition. Dr Cloete applied the Wachtel formula and estimated the dwell time needed to be 36 seconds for the relevant worst-case scenario at the morning peak for transit times. Dr Cloete supports an 18 second dwell time because it would be satisfactory outside the morning peak. VicRoads supports an 18 second dwell time as a properly researched basis for an appropriate dwell time
3. I do not accept Dr Cloete's opinion that an 18 second dwell time is preferable. Dr Cloete's reliance on the Wachtel formula in forming his opinion is undermined by his concession that the formula makes no distinction between sight and legibility distance and that it should make that distinction. He also conceded that dwell time should be based on legibility distance and that his evidence was only based on sight distance.
4. The relevant extracts of the unrevised transcript of Mr Tweedie's examination of Dr Cloete provides -

Now, you have drafted your report on the basis, I think you said before that, that there is no difference between visibility and legibility, correct? ---That's correct.

But you've just conceded there is? --- I drafted my report based on the content in Jerry Wachtel's review which did make a distinction between sight distance and legibility distance.

So the answer is, "Yes, I have drafted my report on the basis there's no difference between visibility and legibility."? --- Correct.

And until you came into this court and I assume someone raised the issue with you before you gave evidence, you hadn't even thought about it had you? --- ...

So who raised it with you outside the court? --- Ms ...

So she said, "You might want to think about this, does it make a difference if the sign is not actually legible?" And you said, "Let me think, yes, it does make a difference"? --- That's accurate, yes.

So your expert report was based on the false premise that we should be calculating dwell time on the basis of when the sign is visible but not legible? --- I was just going by the best practice review that I had available.

Which you now concede is a wrong approach. It shouldn't be calculated on the basis of when it's visible. Your evidence is it should be calculated, if it is to be calculated on the basis of when the sign is legible, correct? --- True.

So we need to completely set aside your evidence, don't we, as to what the appropriate dwell time is? --- I will qualify my evidence.

Okay, you're going to qualify your evidence now, are you? Go ahead, qualify it. What's now the position in terms of dwell time? --- The qualification is that the Wachtel formula as published in the Wachtel report makes no distinction between sight and legibility distance. Legibility distance, I think is important. But to the best of my knowledge there's nothing in the literature to guide me.

Well, we don't need to go to the literature because your extensive experience as a - knowing as a human factors consultant, and knowing all about human behaviour and reaction to issues of distraction tells you that it's not visibility, it's legibility, correct? You weren't equivocal about it a minute ago? --- Correct.

So I'm right aren't I? You now sit here as an expert and say I was wrong when I said it should be based on visibility. It should be based on legibility, correct? --- Correct.

And until you sat in that witness box or someone raised it with you outside the court or the tribunal before you gave evidence, you just hadn't really thought about it had you? --- No.

Okay, and you haven't even formed a view as to when this sign might be legible, have you? --- That would depend on the contents presented in the sign.

Yes, and I will ask the question again and see if you can answer it. You have not formed a view, have you, as to where or at what distance this sign would be legible as opposed to merely visible? --- No.

So you are unable to give the tribunal any guidance whatsoever as to what an appropriate dwell time is, correct? --- I wouldn't say any guidance; I would say qualified guidance.

Well, what's the qualification? You don't know where - you say it should be calculated now on from where it's legible but you don't know where that is, correct? --- Correct.

So you can't say what the dwell time should be. We know something though, don't we? We know it's got to be less than 18 seconds doesn't it? --- Yes.

1. On the evidence in this proceeding, I am not satisfied that the Wachtel formula yet warrants adoption by responsible authorities and this Tribunal in determining appropriate dwell times. Australian road authorities have yet to adopt it and have recently adopted a guideline based on important variations to the Wachtel principles.[16]
2. I therefore find there is an insufficient basis for adopting VicRoads' preferred dwell time, particularly when its expert, Dr Cloete, accepted that preference has a misconceived basis.

1. The Council's adoption of a five-second dwell time involved weighing up a range of factors such as advice of its traffic engineers, the relatively modest size of the sign, its elevated position, the relative lack of complexity in the intersection and the application of dwell times in other recent signs. In this exercise of judgment, it was not unreasonable for the Council to adopt five seconds and therefore there was no material mistake in doing so.

1. None of the grounds on which VicRoads relied in support of a material mistake have been made out.

1. As VicRoads has not made out the grounds for the amendment of the permit, the Tribunal's power to amend the permit is not enlivened.
2. It is therefore unnecessary to examine the submissions and evidence in relation to each of the amendments.

1. In this proceeding, VicRoads was not satisfied that the further information provided by Octopus Media was of a quality that met the requirement under s 54 of the PE Act.
2. VicRoads decided that it could not consider the application until the information was of the requisite quality. It made a 'suggestion' that the application should lapse. It did not object to the grant of a permit on a specified ground, which it should have done having regard to the statutory framework.
3. At the core of the disagreement, VicRoads did not accept the permit applicant's definition about peripheral vision or view cones. However, VicRoads has no adopted definition about these matters. Before preparing the information, the permit applicant asked VicRoads to provide its definition but VicRoads could not or would not provide it. To oppose the permit applicant's definition when VicRoads did not have its own definition and when the requirement did not include a definition was unreasonable.
4. As VicRoads' response was not an objection and was ambiguous, the Council was able to decide the application and grant the permit.
5. VicRoads originally applied to cancel the permit but amended the application to amend the permit. Its main objective was to ensure that the road safety risk of driver distraction was reduced by requiring the sign dwell time to be increased from five to eighteen seconds.
6. Neither of the two bases for VicRoads' application have been made out.
7. I encourage VicRoads to make sure its responses to responsible authorities are more consistent with the statutory framework within which its exercises its important functions in the planning system as a referral authority.
8. The Application will be refused and the permit must not be amended.

[2] The scheme cl 52.05-3, being an extract of what is commonly known as VicRoads' '10 point road safety checklist'.

[3] Octopus Media Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2012] VCAT 350 (29 March 2012, Cook M).

[5] Spurling v Development Underwriting (Vic) Pty Ltd [1973] VicRp 1; [1973] VR 1 (Stephen J).

[6] Spurling v Development Underwriting (Vic) Pty Ltd [1973] VicRp 1; [1973] VR 1, 14.

[7] Commonwealth of Australia v O'Donohue [1979] VicRp 46; [1979] VR 441 (Menhennit J).

[8] Commonwealth of Australia v O'Donohue [1979] VicRp 46; [1979] VR 441, 454.

[9] I do not need to make a finding about whether VicRoads' statement constituted 'comments' but if it did, I am satisfied that the Council considered the comments, as it is required to do under s 60(1) of the PE Act.

[11] PE Act s 55(2); Planning and Environment Regulations 2005 reg 21.

[13] _Planning and Environment Regulations 200_5 reg 22.

[14] Octopus Media Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2012] VCAT 350 at [19].

[15] Jerry Wachtel, Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2008).

[16] Austroads_, Impact of Roadside Advertising on Road Safety_, Research Report AP-R420-13 (January 2013) at p 41.