The case of Think Outdoor Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2024] QPEC 48 concerned an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland (Court) by Think Outdoor Pty Ltd (Applicant) against the decision of the Brisbane City Council (Council) to refuse an application to install, erect, and display an electronic advertising device (Proposed Device) on land located to the north-west of the intersection of Beaudesert Road, Fox Road, and Paradise Road in Acacia Ridge, Queensland (Land).

The Council's position changed during the course of the appeal and ultimately was that the Proposed Device could be approved subject to conditions.

However, the Applicant and Council could not reach agreement on a condition that prescribes minimum dwell times, being the minimum period for each individual image or message to be displayed, which is required to mitigate driver distraction due to involuntary glances towards the Proposed Device when there is a change of image or message.

The Court had to assess any potential risks and determine whether the proposed minimum dwell times ensure that the Proposed Device is controlled to maintain road safety to an acceptable standard under the Council's Advertising Devices Local Law 2021 (Local Law).

The Court was satisfied that the level of road safety could be maintained to an acceptable standard and ordered that the Proposed Device be approved subject to the conditions proposed by the Applicant (at [56]).

The Land is currently improved by an "…existing and approved double-sided static billboard…" that is marginally larger than the Proposed Device (at [10]).

The Applicant is seeking to upgrade the existing billboard to the Proposed Device which involves replacing the north and south facing panels with electronic screens (at [19]).

The evidence before the Court established that driver visibility is good at the intersection of Beaudesert Road, Fox Road, and Paradise Road, and that all sightlines are clear (at [16]). Beaudesert Road comprises three lanes in each direction, has a speed limit of 70 kilometres per hour, and carries approximately 16,750 vehicles per day in each direction (at [16]). The limited crash history for the intersection establishes that it has not been adversely affected by the presence of the existing billboard "…beyond what may be reasonably expected for an intersection of [its] size and carrying the traffic volumes set out above" (see [17] and [18]).

The Applicant contended that the minimum dwell time for the north facing panel should be maintained at 10 seconds (at [5]). The Council contended that it should be 36 seconds (at [6]).

The Court considered the proposed minimum dwell times and found that the Applicant's proposed minimum dwell time of 10 seconds would maintain road safety to an acceptable standard given the following (see [25] to [34]):

• Under the Local Law, regard is to be given to the technical standards (Local Law Standards) applicable to the Proposed Device and "…Council's own document provides for a minimum dwell time of eight seconds".

• Beaudesert Road is a State-controlled road managed by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR), and therefore regard is to be given to DTMR's roadside advertising manual (DTMR Manual) which identifies a minimum dwell time of 10 seconds.

• The Applicant's and Council's respective traffic engineers reviewed the travel path and surrounding conditions and determined that there is no reason to warrant a minimum dwell time beyond those identified in the Local Law Standards and the DTMR Manual.

• The Council's traffic engineer calculated an appropriate minimum dwell time of 10 seconds using a formula in the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management. The formula aims to limit the number of message changes that drivers are exposed to and provides that ideally the proportion of drivers (PD) should be less than one. A minimum dwell time of 10 seconds for the north facing panel yields a PD of 0.77.

The Applicant contended that the minimum dwell time for the south facing panel should be maintained at 25 seconds (at [5]).The Council contended that it should be maintained at 200 seconds between the hours of 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 2:30 pm to 6:30 pm, and 100 seconds at all other times (at [6]).

The Court considered the proposed minimum dwell times and found that the Applicant's proposed dwell time of 25 seconds would maintain road safety to an acceptable standard given the following (see [36] to [55]):

• The Local Law Standards applicable to the Proposed Device provide for a minimum dwell time of 8 seconds.

• The DTMR Manual provides for a minimum dwell time of 10 seconds.

• The proposed minimum dwell time complies with the minimum dwell time for an electronic advertising device visible from a motorway contemplated by the DTMR Manual.

• ​​​​A minimum dwell time of 25 seconds for the south facing panel yields a PD of 0.68.

The Court was satisfied that the level of road safety could be maintained to an acceptable standard and ordered that the Proposed Device be approved subject to the conditions proposed by the Applicant (at [56]).

This Court's decision serves as a reminder to local governments that for Local Laws drafted like the Local Law in this case regard should be had to both the technical standards and guidelines, and expert opinion about what is appropriate in the relevant circumstances.