THE strong words surrounding the planning application for Blackburn's first refugees' centre -- which was refused last night -- stress just how vexed the asylum-seeker issue is.

But if it is one that appears increasingly difficult to resolve as thousands of asylum-seekers bid to enter and stay in Britain, one thing stands out amid the complexity.

That is, the principle of this country offering refuge to the oppressed and persecuted. Britain is a rich, democratic nation and, as such, has a moral obligation to help the less fortunate.

Yet, the row at Blackburn illustrates how hard it can be to live up to the ethic in practical terms -- particularly when the council is presented with a plan that would admit more asylum seekers despite it complaining that it already has more than was agreed.

In that context, it is hard for such an application -- entailing the conversion of a former old folk's home into a hostel for refugees -- to be evaluated purely on planning grounds.

Is not the claim that Blackburn is already 'full up,' a consideration? And are not the concerns of residents -- reflected in hundreds of signatures on petitions, one of which was rejected by the planning committee last night -- matters that are also difficult to ignore, regardless of what their inspiration may be?

Yet, conversely, can a planning meeting be allowed to be a political platform that adds such extraneous influence to its consideration?

These were the sort of difficulties which clearly confronted councillors last night as accusations of scaremongering and condemnation of the rejection of residents' arguments were swapped.

In such circumstances, neutral judgment of the plan was virtually impossible. But in seeking to stay with that standard, it would seem that the choice location for the proposed asylum centre flawed the application -- and that its coming when Blackburn is apparently over its limit for asylum seekers made its timing unfortunate and provocative.