This page is no longer updated. Please see the project page for further updates.


How should we dispose of Wellington's residual waste?

The existing consents for the Southern Landfill expire in June 2026. We need to decide how we dispose of Wellington’s residual waste (what's left after we reduce, reuse and recycle) after this date. 

We’ve developed a shortlist of three waste disposal options and we’re seeking public feedback on these.  

The options are: 

Preferred option
Option A: New landfill on top of existing landfill (piggyback option)

Option B: Waste to energy incineration


Option C: No residual waste facility in Wellington City
Annual operating cost: $4m.

Current financially self-sustaining model is maintained. No rates impact.


Annual operating cost: $5m. Current financially self-sustaining model not maintained. A proportion of costs likely to be recovered from rates
Annual operating cost: $6.4m. Current financially self-sustaining model not maintained. A proportion of costs likely to be recovered from rates
Capital investment and debt impact: $42.5m for 15–20 years assuming current waste volumes. Already included in current Long Term Plan
Capital investment and debt impact: $215m for 25 years assuming current waste volumes.
Capital investment and debt impact: None.
Carbon impact:
No change from existing landfill.
Carbon impact: Less than Option A initially as electricity generated can offset carbon, plus no methane generation. Likely to have a higher long-term carbon impact than Option A as needs minimum volumes of waste to operate.
Carbon impact: Slightly higher than Option A due to additional carbon used to transport waste to other facilities in the region
Environmental impacts: Similar to current landfill impacts but at reduced scale due to smaller footprint. Development on pre-existing landfill site (brownfields).
Environmental impacts: Fewer contaminants into land and likely less leachate. More air discharges. Need for minimum waste volumes could be a barrier to waste minimisation – so long term environmental gains are limited.
Environmental impacts: Fewer local impacts, but increased impacts at alternate waste receiving facility
New Zealand experience:
Common – many examples
New Zealand experience: Currently no operational facilities
New Zealand experience: Some territorial authorities have adopted this approach
Contaminated soil and asbestos contaminated material:
Can be safely disposed of.
Contaminated soil and asbestos contaminated material: Not accepted – will need to be disposed of at Spicers Landfill in Porirua or Silverstream Landfill in Upper Hutt
Contaminated soil and asbestos contaminated material: Not accepted – will need to be disposed of at Spicers Landfill in Porirua or Silverstream Landfill in Upper Hutt


More information 

All options have advantages and disadvantages. You can find out more about these in the documents below:


Webinar