FIRE safety officers could block a controversial plan to build nearly 50 homes in a Hampshire town, the Daily Echo can reveal.

Civic leaders are seeking expert advice after building control staff warned that low archways on the estate could prevent fire engines from reaching some of the properties.

Councillors were told that sprinklers in the flats and houses would protect residents in the event of a fire.

But Cllr Ron Scrivens said: “The fire service does a lot more than put out fires. Sprinklers couldn’t rescue someone from a burning building.”

The application to build 48 homes on industrial land at Brokenford Lane, Totton, was eventually approved by just one vote at a meeting of New Forest District Council’s planning and development control committee.

Senior planning officer Chris Elliott was authorised to grant consent, subject to the council receiving a guarantee on fire safety.

Mr Elliott told the committee: “I can give you a categorical assurance that unless a fire officer is satisfied that these homes comply with fire safety regulations they will not be built, irrespective of what you decide today.”

Some councillors accused the applicant, Cascade Awbridge, of trying to squeeze too many properties on to the site.

They claimed that the density could result in social problems and antisocial behaviour.

Cllr Chris Lagdon said: “We don’t want to see a scheme such as this shoehorned into the site.

“Living conditions will not be ideal, to say the least, and we could be storing up trouble for ourselves.”

Three previous proposals to build homes on the land were rejected amid claims that the proposed estate could become a ghetto.

Cllr Maureen Holding dismissed suggestions that the latest application was an improvement on the earlier plans and should be given the go-ahead.

Describing the proposed development as cramped she said: “I’m worried about the psychological implications of cramming people into sites such as this.”

Amanda Sutton, for the applicant, said the new scheme had produced only a small number of objections from local residents.

She added: “Density is an issue that has already been resolved. We don’t believe it’s a valid reason for refusal.”