Skip to content
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

Open
ExacomUK opened this issue Dec 20, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Exacom UK. - S106 data format #54

ExacomUK opened this issue Dec 20, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels
project:developer-contributions Issue related to data format and tools

Comments

@ExacomUK
Copy link

ExacomUK commented Dec 20, 2018

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

@ExacomUK ExacomUK changed the title Exacom UK Exacom UK. - S106 data format Dec 20, 2018
@mattlucht mattlucht mentioned this issue Dec 21, 2018
@mattlucht
Copy link

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

@ExacomUK
Copy link
Author

ExacomUK commented Dec 21, 2018 via email

@mattlucht mattlucht added the project:developer-contributions Issue related to data format and tools label Jan 10, 2019
@HarrietFisher
Copy link

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.

jakemulley pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 23, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
project:developer-contributions Issue related to data format and tools
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants