A staggering £100 million in taxpayer funds was lost on a series of “zombie” Brexit border inspection facilities that were ultimately never utilized. Fresh data released by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) reveals the extent of the expenditure across seven planned inland border sites in England and Wales. These facilities were constructed as part of a government response to the UK’s departure from the EU, only to be decommissioned as Conservative ministers repeatedly changed their approach to implementing import checks on continental goods. It has been revealed, the UK wasted at least £100m in taxpayers’ money to set up zombie Brexit border inspection posts that were never used. The sites were built but quickly decommissioned as the Conservative government at the time vacillated over plans to check goods coming in from the continent. Just hours before a “transition year” ended and Brexit was due to be implemented with supposed checks on all lorries coming across the Channel, furious residents at the village of Guston were told of the plans for the inland border facility on 31 December 2020.
Of the seven sites, five never reached an operational stage. The government had initially moved to build these facilities after determining that food products entering from the EU would maintain pre-Brexit standards, eventually opting against full enforcement. While the total cost of Brexit-related systems, including software transformations for customs declarations, was estimated by the National Audit Office at £4.7 billion, the specific costs of these physical inland border facilities represent a separate and significant burden on the public purse. The overall cost of Brexit was put at an estimated £4.7bn by the National Audit Office last year but this included years-long transformation of the software used for customs declarations and other systems built to cope with the UK leaving the single market. But even that was last minute, the UK finally opted for a site 20 miles inland at Sevington in Kent.
The facility at Guston, near Dover, serves as perhaps the most contentious example. Known locally as the “Dover white cliffs” site, it remains little more than a field despite having already cost taxpayers £28 million. Records indicate that £21 million was spent by the Department for Transport on procurement, while an additional £7 million went toward initial groundwork, including archaeological surveys for Roman remains.
Further expenditures included £17 million for a proposed facility at Birmingham Airport, which incurred £6 million in closure costs alone after £11 million was spent on construction.
Similarly, sites at Warrington and the Ebbsfleet International station car park cost a combined £20 million. A town just south of the Dartford Bridge on the Thames estuary, another £20m was spent on sites in Warrington and in Ebbsfleet.
The Warrington site, located at a former coach stop in Appleton Thorn, was intended to serve traffic from Ireland but faced intense local opposition before its £9 million construction and £1 million decommissioning costs were finalized. Ebbsfleet saw £4 million spent on conversion into a lorry park and £6 million on closure.
North Weald airfield also saw £5 million in investment to prevent congestion on the M25, split between £3 million for construction and £2 million for closure. HMRC noted that while Birmingham, Ebbsfleet, and North Weald did not require the acquisition of land, the decision to locate these facilities so far from Dover highlighted the significant lack of readiness for post-Brexit logistical demands. To avert congestion on the M25, this airfield was commandeered for the same purpose.
Because Dover is a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, officials found it impossible to conduct extensive customs checks directly near the primary port. This led to the selection of a site at Sevington in Kent, where capital costs reached £154 million, including £30 million for farmland and £70 million for building works. In total, operational costs related to these sites have reached £179 million, expenses that would not have existed had Brexit not taken place.
Individual ports also faced massive, separate investment pressures. Portsmouth’s council-owned port invested £23 million in a hi-tech border control post, receiving £17.1 million in government funding but leaving the council to cover a £6 million shortfall. Port director Mike Sellers noted that the facility, designed for 80 checks daily, currently handles only two on average. The site faces an uncertain future, as repurposing it for general warehousing is estimated to cost nearly as much as demolition. Leaving the council to make up the £6m shortfall, which could otherwise have been spent on essential services, the port received £17.1m in government funding for the project. The EU launched all the checks in Calais, Dublin and other European ports from day one as the UK was treated as a “third country” overnight. According to the port’s director, Mike Sellers, compared with the 80 checks originally envisioned, two trailer checks take place on average each day. Ideally we would look to repurpose it rather than demolish it, but it will cost us almost as much to repurpose as to demolish, he said: “Given the border post’s location within the operational port.
Meanwhile, the Holyhead site, which remains operational for goods from Ireland, cost £37 million to acquire and build. These figures are distinct from the private investment made by Eurotunnel, which spent €50 million on truck infrastructure and €90 million on passenger systems, including an entry-exit program that the French authorities never activated. As these sites become redundant, port leaders are now calling on the government to provide compensation for the lost capital. Including an entry and exit system that has never been activated by the French, eurotunnel spent €50m (£41.7m) on building the infrastructure for Brexit checks for trucks and €90m on changes for passengers.
