A council leader says his authority cannot take on any more asylum seekers and “throwing more money” at the problem won’t solve it.

Maidstone council – like all other local authorities up and down the country – has been asked by the government to estimate how many extra people they can accommodate.

The Illegal Migration Act, which passed this summer, looks to set up “safe and legal” routes for people coming into the UK – but from 2025 it also intends to place a cap on the total number allowed in.

However, Maidstone Council leader Cllr Burton (Con) told members of his housing and health policy advisory committee that they, along with Kent County Council, were minded to make a “zero” return.

He said: “We all want to help these people, but we just don't have the capacity.

“We’ve got nowhere left. I interpret the key question as ‘how many empty houses have you got ready to receive these people?’

“To which the answer is in the order of negative 700 to 900 – because that’s how many people we have on our housing list, with 270 families already in emergency accommodation. There is no spare provision.”

Cllr Burton said there was already pressure on school places and access to medical care.

The Tory leader added: “That doesn’t belittle our compassion towards these people, but I do not see how we can accommodate them.”

The government has promised financial support for those authorities taking in asylum seekers.

A core resettlement tariff of £20,520 per person will be provided over five years, with additional support in the first year of up to £4,500 per child to cover education costs, and £850 for adults requiring English language support.

There will also be £2,600 per person made available to local health bodies to cover healthcare costs in the first year.

But when it came to the pressures the council faced in homing extra people, Cllr Burton hastened to add it wasn’t just the case of “throwing money at it”.

“It takes years to get a house built – identifying the site, getting the planning permission, finding a contractor, etc,” he explained.

“Throw as much money as you like at this, but there is not going to be an extra place for them tomorrow.”

“If you look at medical care, it takes over a decade to train a GP. You can throw money at it, but it would be a decade plus to get them into the frontline.”

But Cllr Burton’s suggested “zero” response was heavily criticised by Cllr Stuart Jeffery, Green Party leader on the council.

Cllr Jeffery said: “The UN described the government’s Illegal Migration Act as a ‘ban on asylum’. It’s clearly in breach of international law.

“I’m concerned that if we put zero in our response, it gives the national government the opportunity to say ‘We’re full’.

“That feels wrong, particularly in terms of the overall migration figures in which asylum seekers are a very small proportion.

“I really want to welcome refugees. I really don't want to see a return that says zero.”

The Green leader claimed the new Act amounted to national “sabre-rattling against refugees” which he believes the council should disassociate itself from.

But Cllr Burton responded by asking Cllr Jeffery: “How many families do you think Maidstone can accommodate in this borough based on what we know?”

To which Cllr Jeffery replied: “I’m going to dodge giving an answer because I don’t think we should be playing the national government’s game on a politically charged consultation based on an illegal bill.”

Cllr Paul Wilby (Lib Dem) said: “We know we have empty properties in the borough. We could use compulsory purchase orders on empty properties to provide more accommodation.

“To say our capacity in 2025 is going to be zero is a bit much. It’s saying that we are not even going to look at it. But there are things we could do.

“I agree with Cllr Jeffery, we are having something pushed on us from the national level to comment back on to basically support the national government. It stinks!”

We’re not trying to be cruel. We’re not trying to be awful. We are just trying to be realistic

Cllr Michelle Hastie (Con) said the council was already struggling to meet the demand for houses for its own residents.

“There are people in Maidstone who are vulnerable and in a terrible state, living in tents,” she said.

“I understand that refugees are in a difficult position, but we have at some point to think of people in this borough.

“I don't want to say no to everybody, but we have to be realistic.

“We’re not trying to be cruel. We’re not trying to be awful. We are just trying to be realistic.”

She added: “We have our own people, so terrified every night, sleeping in tents, in our own borough that I think deserve our help much more than other people coming from other places.

“Why should we sweep our people under the carpet? They’re the most important people to me."

Cllr Burton told the committee it was a “complete fallacy” to suggest empty properties in the borough would make a significant difference to the housing crisis.

He told councillors: “Help me identify them because there are 700 families that would be in them tomorrow.”

But when it came to the vote, Cllr Jeffery’s motion won the day.

The committee’s advice to Cllr Burton, when he makes his response, is that the council should be “a blank response so as not to be drawn into national government politics on this issue”.

Under the cabinet system, Cllr Burton must consider the committee’s advice but is free to make up his own mind on the response to make.

Maidstone Council has previously housed 22 refugee families.

In addition, 450 Ukrainians have been found homes with local families since the invasion of the Eastern European nation by Russia.