Controversy over Rwanda spin-offs aside, home secretary Priti Patel's ‘Full Dispersal' plan for a more equitable distribution of asylum-seekers across the UK has been well-received.

But delivering the policy will create fresh challenges for local government.

As The MJ revealed last week, the Home Office has written to council chiefs outlining proposed Full Dispersal targets that 12 regions must hit to ensure the UK handles a spike in asylum-seekers fleeing crises in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and other troubled states.

Councils' voluntary participation in asylum programmes failed to reverse historical disparities in case management. So, while Home Office officials consulted council personnel over Full Dispersal, final targets will be imposed centrally.

Regional council bodies have until 7 September to outline how the benchmarks will be met, and local executives have expressed concerns over the tight deadline.

But first, some backdrop to Full Dispersal.

After much of the toxic Brexit debate centred on the European Union's immigration policy, some hopeful politicians believed the UK's exit would dampen migration and asylum as political flashpoints. How wrong they were.

Successive waves of refugees fleeing war and persecution have arrived since Brexit because the UK, rightly and despite some hostility, maintains its status as a safe haven. Add to this mix the number of separate migrants arriving – some through controversial methods, such as small boat Channel crossings – and the result is that some regions are managing soaring demand for housing, healthcare and schools.

The scale of the refugee crisis has left the UK struggling to provide sufficient homes for new arrivals – a London Council spokesman acknowledged housing supply remains the biggest ‘pinch point' – and to ensure broader demand on resources is manageable. Yet experts believe the number of refugees will most likely increase in the short-term as conflict and climate change create new diasporas.

Of course, not all refugees are asylum-seekers. Officially, asylum-seekers are those who have lodged a formal application to remain in the UK but whose request is pending. Other refugees have arrived on specific visa programmes, and many have had asylum applications processed.

Latest Home Office figures show that of the 88,466 asylum applicants awaiting a decision in July, some 19,217 (21.72%) were in London, with a further 16,271 (18.39%) in the North West of England. That is more than 40% of all applicants residing in just two areas of the UK.

Cllr Claire Holland, leader of Lambeth LBC and London Councils' executive member for communities, recently warned the capital's resources are stretched. Housing is in such short supply, and is so costly in the capital that many asylum applicants are placed in expensive (sometimes dingy) hotels. And that is despite the exceptional efforts of dedicated staff.

So, London's practitioners have expressed relief that Full Dispersal recognises the disproportionate pressures on the capital, and most believe initial Home Office targets can be met by December 2023.

A London Councils spokesperson said: ‘We're pleased to see the approach being adopted through the Full Dispersal plan and hope it will lead to a more sustainable sharing of responsibility.

‘While there will undoubtedly be continuing challenges, the Home Office is taking on board London boroughs' concerns. We're certainly keen to keep working in partnership with the Government and local authorities around the country to ensure the plan is as successful as possible.'

That explained, most asylum experts acknowledge London will remain a popular destination.

‘This is as much about the cultural capacity to absorb newcomers, and the fact that many asylum applicants arrive through London's airports, as it is about resources,' one source said. ‘London has a long tradition of welcoming immigrants. The cultural infrastructure is there, and that also applies to other major cities such as Birmingham and Manchester.'

Other asylum hotspots include Kent, where towns such as Dover have handled the Channel crossings on which Britain's tabloid media has fixated. The UK now spends £4.7m a day – £1.7bn annually – on emergency hotels for asylum-seekers. And that is the tip of the iceberg in terms of overall costs.

Under Full Dispersal, ministers want to send a higher proportion of asylum-seekers to Scotland, Wales, the East of England and the South West. But practitioners believe that for the policy to succeed, regions receiving greater numbers will likely need to place claimants in major cities and towns.

‘When people read that "the South West" must take on more asylum-seekers, for example, critics mistakenly envisage Afghan families turning up in rural communities. That's unlikely. Urban hubs will assume greater responsibility because that's where the accommodation and services are,' one observed.

‘What will likely follow is relatively less pressure on London, Manchester and Birmingham, and more demand on cities such as Leicester, Cardiff and Bristol.'

Under Full Dispersal, Scotland's proportion of asylum-seekers should increase from 6.2% (5,499 people) to 9% (around 9,000 claimants) by December 2023.

But are Scotland's devolved bodies ready to deliver that expanded capacity?

‘The short answer is "yes", but we'd rather not have targets imposed on Scotland by Westminster,' a Scottish National Party source told The MJ.

Until recently, Glasgow City Council led Scotland's discussions with the Home Office. But other Scottish authorities, including City of Edinburgh Council, are also working hard.

Asylum accommodation is mainly procured through shared properties within the private sector. In Scotland, the programme is managed by a contractor, Mears Group, which has encountered local capacity challenges.

Recently, the Home Office opened several hotel sites, including one hosted by Edinburgh and managed by Mears. But Edinburgh and Glasgow are relatively expensive cities, and it is likely more councils must work with Mears to secure cheaper housing if Scotland is to meet Home Office targets.

As one senior source at Edinburgh put it: ‘It is…likely that given relative rent levels, Mears will be looking to other council areas before Edinburgh.'

Yet because historical asylum pressures have landed on Glasgow and Edinburgh, both cities have faced health sector challenges – an often-overlooked consequence of refugee programmes.

And therein lies a key challenge within refugee and asylum policies: the impact on public services beyond housing.

Accessing emergency and long-term healthcare is almost as critical. Some heavily pregnant women fled Afghanistan, for example, and arrived requiring considerable support.

Additional cultural, language and adult education resources are also needed to ensure asylum arrivals integrate within local communities. Some of these vital services fall outside traditional Whitehall funding pots, so councils often cover extra bills.

Most Afghan refugees who become asylum applicants are single men, so councils generally report that pressure on schools has emerged mainly from the influx of Ukrainian families and unaccompanied children.

But managing asylum in ‘new' areas is not always about resources and, as the predicted UK recession bites in Q4, some councils expect pockets of public opposition to new arrivals.

One town hall leader said: ‘That is inevitable, for all the usual misplaced reasons around [long-term] jobs and resource scarcity. But in a state with a population of 67 million, asylum numbers are relatively small. Frontline experience indicates hostility towards asylum-seekers is rare. That's our expectation as we plan to manage further arrivals.'

This brings us to what happens when asylum claims are settled. Some 75% of applications are granted. But unsuccessful applicants rarely leave the UK swiftly – meaning 25% exit official asylum accommodation but remain in their locality as someone defined as having ‘no recourse to public funds'. In practice, this means councils often cover further housing and support bills – and local government is pushing for greater acknowledgement of this in future financial settlements.

A mountain of challenges face public bodies admirably managing refugee and asylum flows. That is the price of providing a safe haven for the persecuted. Ensuring the cost is more evenly spread will now fall to councils already under financial pressure.