{"id":119041,"date":"2025-05-21T06:04:10","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T06:04:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/119041\/"},"modified":"2025-05-21T06:04:10","modified_gmt":"2025-05-21T06:04:10","slug":"brexit-food-control-post-at-portsmouth-may-have-to-be-demolished-says-port-director-international-trade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/119041\/","title":{"rendered":"Brexit food control post at Portsmouth \u2018may have to be demolished\u2019, says port director | International trade"},"content":{"rendered":"

A \u00a325m post-Brexit border control post in Portsmouth may have to be demolished if the UK government\u2019s deal with the EU<\/a> removes the need for health and veterinary checks on food imports, according to the port\u2019s director.<\/p>\n

Mike Sellers had already spoken out last year about how more than half of the site would never be used<\/a> because planned checks on EU food and plant products had been pared back since it was designed, leading to the building being called a \u201cwhite elephant\u201d.<\/p>\n

The hi-tech facility at the UK\u2019s second busiest cross-Channel terminal was one of more than 100 border control posts (BCPs) around the country built to government specifications<\/a> to handle post-Brexit checks on imports subject to sanitary and phytosanitary checks, such as meat, fish, dairy products, fruit and vegetables.<\/p>\n

Inside the 8,000 sq metre facility. Photograph: Jill Mead\/The Guardian<\/p>\n

Under Keir Starmer\u2019s deal with the EU announced on Monday, some routine checks on animal and plant products would be scrapped completely<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnything that would smooth the movement of trade as well as passengers around the port is welcomed, although the devil is in the detail,\u201d said Sellers. \u201cBased on Monday\u2019s announcement and the information that has been provided, we believe that then negates the need for the border control post,\u201d he added, leaving it with two costly choices.<\/p>\n

Sellers said the port\u2019s owner, Portsmouth<\/a> city council, could either \u201crepurpose the facility and see whether we can get another use out of it, or demolish it to give us some more operational land\u201d.<\/p>\n

Boasting 14 lorry bays, Portsmouth\u2019s 8,000 sq metre (86,000 sq ft) border site was designed to allow inspection of low- and high-risk goods in air-lock quarantine zones to prevent cross-contamination.<\/p>\n

Mike Sellers, the port director, is interviewed outside the lorry entrances. Photograph: Alicia Canter\/The Guardian<\/p>\n

However, it has been heavily underused since it began operating in April last year, after the previous Conservative government\u2019s changes to its post-Brexit import regime, known as the border target operating model, which significantly reduced the number of tests required.<\/a><\/p>\n

An average of three checks have been carried out each day at Portsmouth\u2019s BCP in the 12 months since it began operating, Sellers said, compared with the 80 a day for which it was built.<\/p>\n

It and other ports have also been unable to earn the expected amount of money from levying charges on importers for the goods checks.<\/p>\n

Portsmouth, along with 40 other ports, received \u00a3200m in government funding for the new control posts. However, the port infrastructure fund<\/a> was oversubscribed, meaning the ports themselves had to spend an estimated \u00a3120m to cover the remaining building costs.<\/p>\n

Sellers\u2019 port received \u00a317.1m from the fund after applying for \u00a332m, forcing the council to take out a loan to cover the shortfall.<\/p>\n

skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n

Sign up to Business Today<\/p>\n

Get set for the working day \u2013 we’ll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning<\/p>\n

Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n

The British Ports Association (BPA) has welcomed the new deal between the UK and the EU, but is reiterating its call for compensation<\/a> for ports that were forced to build now-redundant border infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Large areas of the new Portsmouth border control post facility will now go unused. Photograph: Alicia Canter\/The Guardian<\/p>\n

\u201cThe sector is out of pocket by \u00a3120m in infrastructure costs and ongoing costs,\u201d said Richard Ballantyne, the industry body\u2019s chief executive.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is very expensive to repurpose and modify the border facilities, and in some cases it will be more cost-effective to demolish them. We are left in a precarious situation of not knowing what to do, but ultimately the cost will need to be passed on as port operations can\u2019t continue taking a hit.\u201d<\/p>\n

The BPA estimates that the running costs for a larger BCP, such as Portsmouth, with about 15 lorry bays will be \u00a3200,000 a year, to cover energy, cleaning, insurance and business rates. Smaller BCPs may have running costs of about \u00a3100,000 a year.<\/p>\n

Portsmouth is backing the BPA\u2019s call for compensation, and said the local authority had been left about \u00a36m out of pocket.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have been left with this huge white elephant,\u201d said Sellers. \u201cWe are not blessed with a lot of operational land, and this took up acres of land and the opportunity cost around that. We were unable to handle some of the potential new business that could have come through Portsmouth.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A \u00a325m post-Brexit border control post in Portsmouth may have to be demolished if the UK government\u2019s deal…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":119042,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5226],"tags":[802,748,2000,299,5187,1699,4884,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-119041","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-brexit","8":"tag-brexit","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-european-union","14":"tag-great-britain","15":"tag-uk","16":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114544317288504587","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119041","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119041\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/119042"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}