The port director said that if the UK government’s agreement with the EU eliminates the need for health and veterinary inspections for food imports, the £25 million post-Brexit border control post may have to be removed.

Mike Sellers had already spoken out last year because the building was called the "white elephant" because the site had been cut by more than half since the inspection of EU food and plant products.

The second busiest high-tech facility in the UK’s cross-channel terminal is one of more than 100 border control posts (BCPs) across the country to handle import inspections of hygienic and botanical inspections such as meat, fish, fish, fish, fish, dairy products, fruits and vegetables.

According to a deal announced on Monday by the EU Keir Starmer, some routine inspections on animal and plant products will be completely abolished.

“While the devil is in the details, the trade and passenger movement around the port and anything about passengers around the port,” the seller said. “Based on Monday’s announcement and the information provided, we think that then negates the demand for border control posts.”

The seller said the port’s owner Portsmouth City Council could “repurpose the facility and see if we could use another use from it, or demolish it to give us more operational land.”

Portsmouth's 8,000 square metre (86,000 square feet) border site has 14 truck brackets designed to inspect low-risk and high-risk cargoes in airlock quarantine areas to prevent cross-contamination.

But since its operation began last April, it has been heavily exploited after the changes in the last Conservative government’s post-Brexit import regime, known as the Border Target Operational Model, which greatly reduces the number of tests required.

The seller said that for the 12 months since its operation started, three ticket checks were conducted every day at the BCP in Portsmouth on average every day.

IT and other ports are also unable to earn expected payments from importers’ fees for levying goods checks.

Portsmouth, along with 40 other ports, has received £200 million in government funding for the new control position. However, the Port Infrastructure Fund has been oversubscribed, meaning the port itself must spend about £120 million to cover the remaining construction costs.

After the seller's port applied for £32 million, the seller's port received £17.1 million from the fund, forcing the Council to collect loans to cover the shortage.

The British Port Association (BPA) welcomes the new agreement between the UK and the EU, but is reiterating its call for compensation for ports forced to build now redundant border infrastructure.

"The industry's infrastructure costs and ongoing costs are less than £120 million," said Richard Ballantyne, CEO of the industry group.

“Repurposing and modifying border facilities is very expensive and in some cases it will be more cost-effective to remove them. We are in a precarious situation where we don’t know what to do, but ultimately need to do the cost through port operations, as port operations cannot continue to be hit.”

The BPA estimates that the operating costs of larger BCPs, such as Portsmouth, have about 15 trucks at bays of £200,000 per year to cover energy, cleaning, insurance and business expenses. The smaller BCP may run at around £100,000 per year.

Portsmouth is supporting the BPA’s call for compensation and said local authorities have a change of about £6 million.

"We have left this huge white elephant behind," the seller said. "We don't have a lot of operating land, which takes up the cost of acres and opportunities. We can't handle some potential new business that might be done through Portsmouth."