Hitchin waste transfer station is a "deeply inadequate site" with "rubbish left in the open air" and "rat and gull infestations", according to a county councillor.

Cllr Ian Albert (Lab, Hitchin North) claimed that funds were "robbed" from improving the waste centre in his ward in order to pay for the new facility at Ware, which is set to open next spring.

The property arrangements for the waste transfer stations in Ware, Waterdale (Watford) and Hitchin were discussed by the resources and performance cabinet panel on Thursday, October 2.

The three waste transfer stations are designed to improve refuse disposal and cut the number of miles covered by the county's dust carts, with rubbish collected from the kerbside across Hertfordshire.

The meeting was told that the current waste services contract with FCC Recycling UK Ltd expires on June 30 next year and will not be renewed. Instead, the contract will go to Veolia ES (UK) Limited to take effect on July 1, 2026.

Members heard that the council owns the land for both stations in Ware and Waterdale, and lease agreements could be absorbed into the new waste services contract. The lease agreements would last for seven years, and Veolia would be charged a "peppercorn" rent.

Meanwhile, the waste transfer station in Hitchin is not owned by the county council, and Veolia will be required to take a direct lease from the landowner, North Hertfordshire District Council, separate from its waste services contract.

During the meeting, Cllr Ian Albert said he felt the report didn't reflect the issues with the Hitchin waste site at Burymead Road in his ward, which he described as "deeply inadequate".

He said: "Bin lorries [are] going through residential sites to come to a site where rubbish is left in the open air, often with rat and gull infestations, opposite local businesses, including a nursery, also [it has] a range of 'nice' smells for residents during the summer months.

"I'd like to thank Matt King from the waste team for his help in relation to this and trying to improve the site as it is, and obviously Cllr Paul Zukowskyj who I think has offered up a meeting next week to discuss the northern transfer station [Hitchin] and the funds that were robbed from the northern transfer station by the previous administration to pay for the eastern transfer station [Ware].

"We desperately need a northern transfer station which is not in Hitchin. It isn't about being a NIMBY, it's about it being an appropriate and suitable site for this kind of usage. That is why the potential new site in Baldock may well fit that bill."

Sass Pledger, property director at the county council, said: "I note your comments about Hitchin, but that is not one that we have detailed in this report because it is a separate negotiation between the contractor and North Herts District Council, so it's not one that we would be involved in.

"That said, I will reiterate your comments about Hitchin to my colleagues in waste [department], who will be able to feed back to you separately."

A report for councillors, prepared by Daniel Morris, senior estates officer, stated: "The re-procured new waste service contract is such that the occupational leases to be granted are there to underpin and support the contract rather than directly affect contract value.

"As such, the leases are proposed at a peppercorn rent. The sites in question are used solely to deliver the service to the public, and the waste services contract value is based on the services being provided."

The document added that there is an ongoing matter for a substation to be added on-site at Waterdale, as part of a separate agreement with United Kingdom Power Networks (UKPN).

Cllr Richard Roberts, former leader of the council, said he intended to vote in support of the new lease agreements, adding that it "recognises huge investment that was made in waste recycling and waste transfer infrastructure".

He added: "It will be interesting whether the administration wishes to continue that or has the wherewithal to continue that into the northern transfer station.

The decision at the time last year was that we didn't have sufficient capital to be able to do that.

"But the investment that has been made in enabling this contract to take place."

Councillors voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation.