THE company behind plans to build 375 homes on the edge of Newent will have to pay nearly £1 million towards education in the town.

The figure of £983,883.64 was set by a planning inspector after Robert Hitchins Ltd went to appeal arguing that the Forest Council had not determined its application within the time limit.

The application relating to land at Gloucester Road also included a primary school with nursery, an “employment area” and a shopping centre .

The council had prepared five “reasons for refusal” but they were all withdrawn before the inquiry after the applicant provided further information.

That left the question of whether the contribution towards primary education requested by Gloucestershire County Council was “necessary and reasonable in all respects.”

The county council was seeking a financial contribution of £2,711,585.25 towards the provision of 112.5 primary school places in the Newent area.

The council argued that there would be insufficient capacity in local schools to accommodate these pupils and therefore the contribution was reasonable and necessary to ensure “there are enough good new school places to meet local needs.”

But while there was no dispute that a contribution towards education was necessary, the company said it should only have to pay £201,282.71 to cover 8.4 places.

That was some 13 times less than the figure the council wanted.

The main areas of disagreement concerned the forecast year, how to treat places from other developments, adjustments to baseline figures and the operating margin.

Inspector D M Young set the forecast year as 2027-28 when 658 places would be needed although that number was reduced by 20 because the number of house completions was expected to decline sharply.

The inspector also decided that only 16.5 spaces – rather than the 69 wanted by the county council – should be included to take account of the Southend Lane development on the other side of the town.

In total, 40.82 additional school places will have to be funded – almost 72 fewer than the county council said were necessary.

The inspector said: “I conclude that a sum of £983,883.64 would be reasonably necessary to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on primary education infrastructure.”

The appeal also took into account the impact of the development on “heritage assets” and wildlife.

The nearest historic buildings are St Mary’s Church and Nellfields and both the developer and the district council agreed the effect would be “minimal”.

The council also agreed that concerns about the impact on bats had been addressed by a mitigation scheme.

In conclusion, the inspector said: “The benefits of the scheme…are accepted by the Council.

“The most significant of these is the provision of up to 375 dwellings (40 per cent of which would be affordable) in an area of need.

“Collectively the benefits of the scheme would clearly outweigh the identified harm.

“There would be no conflict with the Development Plan when read as a whole and the appeal scheme would represent sustainable development. “