{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/digital-land/digital-land/issues/54","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/digital-land/digital-land","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/digital-land/digital-land/issues/54/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/digital-land/digital-land/issues/54/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/digital-land/digital-land/issues/54/events","html_url":"https://github.com/digital-land/digital-land/issues/54","id":393043309,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzOTMwNDMzMDk=","number":54,"title":"Exacom UK","user":{"login":"ExacomUK","id":46025146,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjQ2MDI1MTQ2","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/46025146?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK","html_url":"https://github.com/ExacomUK","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ExacomUK/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-12-20T13:18:39Z","updated_at":"2018-12-20T13:18:39Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"MHCLG s106 data format recording and reporting.  Suggested way forward.\r\n\r\nI 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).\r\n\r\n**Example \r\nLocal Authority description\t                MHCLG description**\r\nEducation Pre school Sum\t\t\tEducation Funding\r\nEducation Primary School Sum\t\tEducation Funding\t\t\r\nEducation Secondary School Sum\tEducation Funding\r\nEducation General School Sum\t\tEducation Funding\r\nEducation St. John’s School sum\tEducation Funding\r\netc\r\n\r\nBecause 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:\r\n\r\nArchaeological Funding\r\nBusiness & Employment funding\r\nCommunity Funding\r\nCrossrail Funding\r\nEcology & Environmental Funding\r\nEducation Funding\r\nHealth Funding\r\nHighways Funding\r\nLegible London Funding\r\nLeisure Funding\r\nOther Funding\r\nPublic Art Funding\r\nPublic Open Space Funding\r\nPublic Realm Funding\r\nSports Funding\r\nTourism Funding\r\nTransportation Funding\r\nTravel & Transportation Funding\r\n\r\nHistoric 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.\r\n\r\nExacom 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).  \r\n\r\nWe 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."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"ExacomUK"}}