"Rumours flying around" on Fort Blockhouse and MoD sites in Portsmouth area housing asylum seekers dismissed
.jpg?width=96&crop=1:1,smart)
Widespread speculation that asylum seekers will be housed at former military sites in Portsmouth and Gosport have been dismissed as unworkable.
The government confirmed to The News last week that ex-armed forces facilities are being considered as alternative temporary accommodation sites to hotels. Speculation has emerged that Fort Blockhouse - which has been up for disposal since 2016 - could be considered as an option.
Gosport Borough Council leader, Cllr Peter Chegwyn, batted away these claims and said the town was not an appropriate place for such proposals. He told The News: “There are rumours flying around, but we’re not aware they’re going to use any in Gosport. We all know the government has a major problem with illegal migrants, which they can’t seem to tackle at all.
“As far as Gosport is concerned, we have none housed here at the moment, none in council properties at all. We’ve heard rumours about Fort Blockhouse and other empty properties, but we don’t have many empty MoD spaces now. We used to have a lot more. I don’t believe the rumours until they’re proven correct.”
The Home Office is currently working on reopening the Haslar Immigration Removal Centre in Dolphin Way, which was closed in 2015. An unexpected announcement was made in 2022 for the 600-bed centre to be revamped and brought back into operation, in a bid to speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers and migrants who have committed crimes in the UK. Residents have expressed their concerns about the works, which have been ongoing for years.
An original 2023 reopening date has lapsed. Cllr Chegwyn, Liberal Democrat for Forton ward, said plans have dragged on at the reported cost of £101m, which is only adding to the febrile atmosphere around discussions and unverified reports about asylum seekers.
“I think it’s unfortunate that Reform UK and others are stirring all kinds of hostility and rumours, but let’s wait until we know the facts before getting too uptight about it all,” he added. “I know the government are keen to get people out of hotels, so they can boast that they’re not using them anymore, but the alternatives could be even more extreme.”
Fort Blockhouse, believed to be the UK’s oldest sea fort - constructed in 1431 - remains up for sale by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), with interested parties making approaches. Dame Caroline Dinenage, Conservative MP for Gosport, launched a petition against the fortification being used as temporary accommodation.
Cllr Chegwyn said Ms Dinenage “jumped the gun” by launching the appeal. “Whether she’s playing politics, I’m not sure,” he added. “We deal in facts rather than rumours. The facts are that we haven’t heard anything officially, or unofficially, at all. We’re not immune to what the online rumours are, but no properties are earmarked in Gosport. It’s not an issue for us.”
Ms Dinenage previously said: “I am concerned by reports that sites like Fort Blockhouse will be used to house asylum seekers. My mailbag is full of constituents letting me know that they are concerned too. If you think that Fort Blockhouse deserves so much better than to be overflow housing for asylum seekers, please sign my petition.”
Portsmouth City Council leader Steve Pitt, Liberal Democrats, said the government proposals would not apply to the city due to a lack of suitable ex-MoD sites. He added that the MoD position is being dictated by the Home Office and is a side-show rather than addressing the actual problem at hand.
“The government’s priority should be speeding up the processing of asylum claims in a timely manner, reducing the need for either ex-military sites or hotels to be used for temporary accommodation,” the Milton ward councillor said. “We need extra staff at processing centres to get through the backlog, so it’s brought up to date as fast as possible, reducing the need for temporary accommodation.
“Spending money on temporary sites isn’t sensible. Spend the money processing claims and clearing the backlog. That’s what needs to happen. Replacing one set of expenditure with another without solving the problem is never a good idea.”