Aussies fume as horrible odour takes over their Perth suburb as two-year battle rages on: ‘Hell’
Residents near Perth’s Tamala Park Waste Facility say persistent odours from the landfill have made daily life unbearable, prompting renewed calls for it to close before its expected 2028 end date. The dispute matters because regulators say pollution from the site is affecting nearby communities and there are concerns that accumulated liquid waste may contaminate groundwater.
A council report estimates the site holds about 2.07 million cubic metres of leachate, roughly two billion litres or nearly 167 Olympic-sized swimming pools, up from an earlier estimate of 417,000 cubic metres. The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation issued an Environmental Protection Notice on 3 August, requiring the operator to report on the leachate and its removal within 30 days; treatment and off-site removal could cost member councils hundreds of millions of dollars.
- Perth residents demand action over landfill odours and leachate.
- The site holds about two billion litres of liquid waste.
- Regulators require a removal plan amid groundwater contamination concerns.
New here? Start with this
Tamala Park Waste Facility is a large landfill in Perth’s northern suburbs, used by several local councils to dispose of household rubbish. Landfills can produce strong smells as waste breaks down, as well as leachate, a polluted liquid formed when water passes through rubbish.
People living nearby have complained for years that odours from the site affect their homes and everyday activities. The councils that jointly own the facility are responsible for its operation, while Western Australia’s environmental regulator oversees whether it is meeting pollution rules.
The dispute also concerns the large amount of leachate believed to be stored at the site. If it is not contained and treated properly, it can pose a risk to groundwater, and dealing with it could be costly for the councils and their ratepayers.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Residents and advocates for earlier closure argue that people should not be expected to live with persistent odours and potential pollution risks for several more years, particularly when regulators have identified concerns requiring urgent action. They contend that public health, quality of life and protection of groundwater should take precedence over the financial convenience of continuing operations, and that the unexpectedly large leachate estimate strengthens the case for ending landfill use sooner and containing the problem.
The case against
Councils and those favouring continued operation may argue that an early closure could impose very large, immediate costs on ratepayers while creating practical problems for managing the region’s waste. They may contend that the regulatory notice provides a framework to assess, treat and remove leachate responsibly, and that carefully enforced remediation and odour controls could protect communities without prematurely losing essential disposal capacity before alternatives are fully ready.