The Community Infrastructure Levy Working Group received a total of sixteen suggestions for CIL funded projects. These are listed below

CIL – Potential Projects (allocated sums are provisional):

  1. Creation of additional allotments dedicated for Folly Farm residents – (£10,000)
  2. improvements to the Hamcrate Play Area – top up funding to offset any shortfalls in the crowd funding / YRIPC matched funding exercise – (£16,000)
  3. Resurface the Hamcrate Allotment Car Park (11,000)
  4. Increase capacity of superfast broadband connections at the Open Reach fibre box –  (£)
  5. School Wig Wag lights at the junction between Thornford Road and Stoneyacres – (£15,000)
  6. Installation of a running/walking/cycling track around the Hamcrate Playing Field – (£35,000)
  7. Replacement of two gates to two stiles on the Rights of Way – (£1,000)
  8. Extension of Scraps Way between Ryme Intrinseca & Yetminster – (£)
  9. Improvements to Yetminster High Street pavements to allow better / safer access for the less able bodied and young parents with prams etc. – (£4,000)
  10. Provision of 2 Yetminster Village Maps – identified within the Parish Plan – (£3,000
  11. Improvements to the Hamcrate Playing Fields – (£ not known)
  12. Relocation of the Hamcrate Croquet Lawn (£1,500)
  13. Improvement of Right of Way to Beer Hackett – (£2,500)
  14. Support for a Youth Club – (£)
  15. Support for an Innovation Centre – (£)
  16. Matched funding for replacement Yetminster Scout Hut – (£10,000)

Project forms were drawn up for each initiative and the CIL Working Group met in November to consider the merits of each. All projects were considered to have merit and were wide ranging in their scope. However, the proposal to improve the surface of the footpath between Yetminster and Beer Hacket (project 13), whilst recognised as desirable, was felt to be the responsibility of the Ranger Service and therefore CIL funding should not be used for this. The provision of two 3D maps of the village (project 10) was felt to now be unnecessary as there was a new map at the Station and therefore the provision of only one map was now considered appropriate. Similarly, the Access for All Project (project 9) could be modified as it was understood, from the Highways Authority, that they had specific funding for pavement improvements of this nature although CIL funding would still be needed to remove the protruding step to the Old Court House in Yetminster High Street (Highways have indicated that they would support this when the necessary approval of the Conservation Officer was sought).

The application for funding to assist with the realignment of the football pitch to enable league matches to be played on a full-size pitch was, by necessity, linked to an enquiry from the Yetminster Tennis and Croquet Club (application to be submitted) to assist with the relocation of the Croquet Lawn. Likewise, the intention to provide an exercise / BMX trail around the Hamcrate Sports Field would also be dependent on the two aforementioned projects going forward. However, it was acknowledged that any improvements would be dependent on the YRIPC reconsidering its intention to appoint consultants to advise on the future use of the Hamcrate Sports Field and Sports Club. A suggested project to increase High Speed Broad Band capacity by enabling more connections at the fibre distribution cabinet would be dependent on the outcome of discussions with Open Reach and Superfast Dorset particularly as it was rumoured that there was a 4-year plan already in existence to do this.

An extension to Scraps way linking Yetminster with Ryme Intrinseca was felt to be desirable. However, any such extension would need careful consideration as the most practical way would be to provide a footway along the existing verge. This would need to meet the requirements of the Highway Authority which it was understood meant a kerb and prepared surface although verification of this was awaited. A drawback was that “urbanisation” in this way would encourage development of the adjoining fields and it was recognised that the field subject to a previous development proposal would be particularly vulnerable. It was also difficult to see how the initiative met the full criteria and approval would very much be dependent on the “interpretation” of the funding criteria.

Last updated 10/03/2022 DIT