New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Exacom UK. - S106 data format #54
Comments
Thanks @ExacomUK your suggestion of categories is very helpful. I've been doing a bit of digging around and pulling out various categories from different Section 106 reports that I can find online. From this I've been trying to map out commonalities and whether there is any sensible grouping for outliers. As you mention, I think there's a balance between a meaningful categorisation at a local level and at a national level. I'll include your suggestions into the mapping exercise that I've started, and link through to that shortly. Thanks. Matt |
Hi Matt,
Feel free to call.
Kind regards
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 14:29, Matt Lucht ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks @ExacomUK <https://github.com/ExacomUK> your suggestion of
categories is very helpful. I've been doing a bit of digging around and
pulling out various categories from different Section 106 reports that I
can find online. From this I've been trying to map out commonalities and
whether there is any sensible grouping for outliers.
As you mention, I think there's a balance between a meaningful
categorisation at a local level and at a national level.
I'll include your suggestions into the mapping exercise that I've started,
and link through to that shortly.
Thanks.
Matt
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#54 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ar5JuqPLzCqUP4I6IllqtSwFGaJkeYkCks5u7PBbgaJpZM4ZcLT1>
.
--
*Geoff Kirby*
Director
*Exacom*Mobile: 07952 264323
Web: www.exacom.co.uk
E-Mail: geoff.kirby@exacom.co.uk
*****************
Emails and any attached files sent from an exacom.co.uk email address are
confidential and may contain personal views that are not the views of
Exacom Systems Ltd. Exacom Systems Ltd hereby exclude any warranty and any
liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and
any attachments.
Email is intended solely for the specified addressee(s). If this email was
sent to you in error, please do not disclose it to other parties, save it,
print it or open any attachments. Please notify us by replying to the email
or by telephoning us on 0208 1234 253 and then delete the email and all
attachments.
|
Note, the categories in the data format need to match those that will be required for the infrastructure funding statement in the amended CIL regulations, and vice versa. |
MHCLG s106 data format recording and reporting. Suggested way forward.
I think I have come up with a simple solution to get around the MHCLG Convention on naming of section 106 covenants. My suggestion is that the local authorities keep their current clause/covenant naming convention. We can then create a standard MHCLG High Level Naming list within Exacom, that allows each individual covenant to have a local description and the MHCLG description (with one to many relationships, as shown below).
Example
Local Authority description MHCLG description
Education Pre school Sum Education Funding
Education Primary School Sum Education Funding
Education Secondary School Sum Education Funding
Education General School Sum Education Funding
Education St. John’s School sum Education Funding
etc
Because MHCLG will be dealing with so much data, their high level s106 categories/descriptions will have to be kept to a minimum, here is a suggested list, to start the discussion off:
Archaeological Funding
Business & Employment funding
Community Funding
Crossrail Funding
Ecology & Environmental Funding
Education Funding
Health Funding
Highways Funding
Legible London Funding
Leisure Funding
Other Funding
Public Art Funding
Public Open Space Funding
Public Realm Funding
Sports Funding
Tourism Funding
Transportation Funding
Travel & Transportation Funding
Historic data update. I suggest that we could create a script which allows each authority to decide which MHCLG description their current naming convention fits into. We can then run this script to add the MHCLG description to their existing naming convention.
Exacom will design a CSV file report on the final requirement, for authorities to either send independently to MHCLG or we may do a direct batch file automatically to MHCLG on a given day of the month (if this is possible).
We also recommend that the MHCLG final solution also allows for a URL display for each individual authority, which will allow users to link down to the authorities PFM or equivalent, for a more detail view on spending etc. GK
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: