COUNCIL chiefs in Worcestershire have refused to launch a scheme to help desperate war-torn Syrians - saying they are seriously concerned about the costs.

Worcestershire County Council's Conservative leadership says it has taken advice from the Home Office and decided to not support a project to help Syrian refugees.

The move, revealed in a cabinet meeting today, has been criticised by campaigners, who say they wanted the county to join larger cities in hosting 'small numbers' of refugee families.

Back in February the full council voted through a motion to ask the Tory leadership to respond to the Government's call for town halls to host Syrians facing their worst crisis in a generation.

But the Government has only guaranteed funding for it for the first year - with County Hall suggesting it could cost taxpayers anywhere from £100,000 to £150,000 a year to support 12 refugees a year.

It also says that is only a very rough estimate - something challenged by critics who claim it "paints a worst-case scenario".

Ruth Forecast, from the Malvern branch of Amnesty International, attended a cabinet meeting to plead that it go ahead.

"While we appreciate the concerns over funding, we do believe these estimates to be over-pessimistic," she said.

"We believe with more discussion these issues can be resolved - although this crisis is taking place in another part of the world, can we ignore it?"

Green Councillor John Raine also wrote a letter which was read out at the meeting, saying if Worcestershire truly wanted to be "world class" it should back it.

He claimed the report painted a "worst-case" outcome for county taxpayers.

However the cabinet insisted that the Home Office say the scheme, which has seen 143 Syrians relocate to the UK in its first nine months, is best suited to large, metropolitan cities.

Leader Councillor Adrian Hardman said: "Obviously compassion is one of the reasons why people become councillors, to improve the 'lot' of their community.

"The response we had back from the Government is that they didn't see a rural shire as the best place to do this, because of the complexities of this.

"We talked to our partners and from the housing people to the Worcestershire care trust to the CCG, they had concerns about how they'd have to respomd if we did this.

"I'd point out that if we did it, it would have to be on a county-wide basis."

He also said the council is under "considerable financial pressure" with a gap of £7 million still to plug next year as it battles to save around £25 million a year.

"I'd also refute the idea we already do nothing with refugees - over the years we've taken a considerable number in the county and will continue to do so, but this is a wider issue than just Syria," he added.

He also told the chamber he felt most taxpayers in Worcestershire would back the refusal to get involved.

Councillor Marc Bayliss, cabinet member for transformation and commissioning, said: "I understand their concerns and share their worry about this significant international crisis.

"But I think the leader has set out why it would be wrong to do this at this moment in time.

"But I think it would be wrong for us to take refugees where we could not find the funds to properly support them going forward."

He also said Worcestershire had a "distinguished history" on welcoming in migrants, having accepted 6,956 in total in the last three years.

The recommendation to not support it - but keep monitoring the Home Office situation should the funding change - will go to full council in July.

The UN estimates as many as 12.2 million people are in need of humanitarian aid in Syria.

At least 7.6 million have fled their homes and there are 3.8 million refugees in neighbouring countries.