Mouse welfare debate amid plan for NSW plastics recycling factory

The welfare of mice used in medical research could be a key factor in plans for a plastics recycling factory in the NSW Southern Highlands.

RePoly has sought to overturn the Independent Planning Commission's rejection of the development at Moss Vale, prompting a 10-day hearing in the Land and Environment Court.

Opponents of the plan include the nearby Garvan Institute Australian BioResources (ABR) facility that breeds specialised laboratory mice used to study diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

The Garvan Institute's barrister, Bora Kaplan SC, told the court the impact of smoke from plastic recycling and vibrations from truck movements had to be considered.

"It's an area where the mice live, breed at night, and sleep during the day," he said.

"The applicant, in our submission, has not proffered any credible information that would enable this court to perform the task of assessing the likely impacts of the proposed development.

"First of all, vibration impacts affecting mouse wellbeing and husbandry, and secondly, vibration impacts affecting microinjection."

Mr Kaplan told the court the microinjection process used on the mice was "extremely sensitive to vibrations".

He said adverse effects from the proposed development could jeopardise the medical research facility's future.

"There could be suspension of Garvin's accreditation and withdrawal of the supplier's license and ability to perform animal-based research," Mr Kaplan said.

RePoly's barrister, Nick Eastman SC, argued it had not been possible to measure "a vibration criteria limit for the health of or comfort of the mice within their mouse pavilion".

"Do you want to give us a bunch of experimental mice and we will disrupt them until they cannibalise each other or some other bad event occurs?" he said.

"What is the testing that would necessarily need to occur?"

Mr Eastman argued the factory's environmental impacts could be adequately managed through strict conditions of approval, but acknowledged that a blaze sending smoke towards the research facility could have serious consequences.

"There is no dispute between the experts that a consequence of a fire that is uncontrolled, that's plumed and goes towards the ABR and requires evacuation for more than two days, will be dire," he said.

"The question is the likelihood of that."

Questions over assessments

The Independent Planning Commission (IPC) argued there were gaps in the assessment of noise, traffic, lighting and other environmental impacts.

Its barrister, Naomi Sharp SC, questioned noise modelling based on trucks travelling around the site at five kilometres an hour, without accounting for braking or acceleration on roads with gradients.

The factory is expected to generate at least 100 heavy vehicle movements a day, with deliveries and collections restricted to weekday daytime hours.

"If, as the consent authority, you do not feel equipped to make an assessment of the likely impacts, then the appropriate course is to refuse the consent," Ms Sharp said.

RePoly argued the assessments were sufficient for this stage of the planning process and further detailed studies and enforceable conditions could address outstanding issues.

Community opposition

The court also heard the development could have significant social impacts on the Southern Highlands community.

Turvey To SC, representing the second respondent community member Samantha Woods, argued the prolonged planning dispute had damaged community trust.

"The community doesn't consider it to be listened to, or its concerns taken seriously," the barrister said.

RePoly has maintained that the factory is a permissible industrial development and that its environmental and social impacts can be managed through appropriate safeguards.