260109 09Jan26 session 26-02
The meeting focused on various updates and challenges related to data management and Parish Online's capabilities, including discussions about accessing local council data, improving asset management
Meeting Summary:
Jan 09, 2026 01:51 PM London ID: 897 5877 7706
Quick recap
The meeting focused on various updates and challenges related to data management and Parish Online's capabilities, including discussions about accessing local council data, improving asset management systems, and exploring potential enhancements to the platform. Participants shared experiences and suggestions for integrating different types of data, addressing data validation concerns, and navigating legal requirements for information sharing between government bodies. The group also discussed strategies for obtaining data from different councils and explored ways to improve collaboration and data integration across regions.
Next steps
Summary
Data Access and Biodiversity Planning
The group discussed various updates and challenges, including David Newman's progress in obtaining data from Oxford City Council, which provided a positive first step for accessing local PAN 2036 data in GeoJSON format. David Morgan-Jones shared his plans to use Parish Online to demonstrate biodiversity efforts, particularly focusing on dormice superhighways, and explored options to integrate key objectives into his presentation. Tristram and others suggested using bookmarks and annotations in Parish Online to enhance the interactivity of the maps, which David found useful for his presentation needs.
Parish Asset Management System Upgrade
James discussed the need to improve asset management for his parish council, which currently lacks a proper system. He plans to use Parish Online to collect and update asset data, including maintenance activities and modifications. Graham suggested using Parish Online's geolocation feature and drop-down menus to simplify data entry for staff with basic IT skills. They also discussed the possibility of creating separate layers for active and retired assets, and Graham explained how to filter and report on data using existing fields. James asked about data storage limits, and Graham confirmed there are none.
Parish Online System Enhancement Discussion
The meeting focused on discussing Parish Online's capabilities and potential improvements. James shared his experience with using Parish Online and highlighted the need for more advanced features to manage assets effectively. Tristram and Graham explained that while Parish Online is designed to be user-friendly, there are limitations due to the system's complexity. The group discussed the possibility of adding an API or plugins to enhance data integration capabilities. James agreed to raise these requirements as a support ticket, with Tristram requesting to be copied on the ticket for follow-up. The conversation also touched on the importance of data validation and transparency in asset management, particularly in light of recent asset transfers to Botley Parish Council.
Obtaining Council Data for Parish Online
Graham explained the process of obtaining council data for Parish Online, highlighting the importance of educating councils about the availability of their data and the cost-free service provided by Geosphere. He emphasized starting with simple data requests, such as tree preservation orders or gullies, and suggested contacting the Director of Client Services or Customer Service Department to facilitate data access. Graham also noted that councils are legally obligated to provide data to their customers in a format useful for Parish Online.
Council Data Layers Overview
Sheila asked about data layers from different councils, particularly regarding planning applications and highways information. Graham explained that data typically comes in named layers corresponding to the council that provides it, and while some information may be useful (like gully IDs), much of it may be incomprehensible without additional context or explanation from the data provider. He noted that Somerset Council, which is in the process of becoming a unitary authority, provides extensive planning data, though some district councils still maintain servers and data independently.
Property Data Integration Challenges
Sheila and Graham discussed challenges with property naming and the benefits of having comprehensive planning application data. Graham highlighted the advantages of South Somerset's system, which provides a centralized view of applications for a particular property. David Newman raised concerns about the lack of unified data across councils and departments, to which Graham suggested connecting with the GIS department in Bath and North East Somerset for more information. Amanda shared insights from Gloucestershire's unitarisation project, emphasizing the importance of early involvement in data devolution to parishes and suggesting collaboration with key stakeholders to ensure seamless integration of parish data.
Highway Gully Data Access Challenges
The group discussed the availability of gully data from different highway authorities, with Graham explaining that data access varies significantly between regions and highlighting that councils often don't realize they're required by law to share data collected at public expense. David Morgan-Jones raised concerns about legal entities' ability to block data access between government bodies, while Tristram mentioned the Reuse of Public Sector Information legislation from 2015 as a potential solution for accessing data. The discussion concluded with Graham emphasizing the need to overcome ignorance about existing data sharing requirements and the possibility of appealing to the Information Commissioner if necessary.
Data Integration and Asset Tracking
The meeting focused on data management challenges, particularly regarding bus stop locations and asset tracking. Graham explained that he could only share his parish data and highlighted issues with outdated footpath information, while James and Stuart discussed difficulties in accessing county highways data in a usable format. Susan inquired about integrating Scribe financial system with Parish Online, and Amanda clarified that while Scribe offers extensive functionality including asset tracking, additional Civically add-on packages would be needed for full integration. The group agreed to publish meeting discussions on the wiki, and Tristram and Stuart planned a separate discussion about obtaining data from Leicester Council.
Parish Online Support Strategy Meeting
Tristram and Stuart discussed the challenges of working with Leicestershire and Rutland County Council, noting their limited support for Parish Online despite previous efforts. They agreed to compile a list of subscribing parishes in the region to present a united front to the new CEO, Justin, and potentially organize a seminar to highlight their experiences. Tristram mentioned that a new asset manager feature is nearing completion and will address some existing issues with the current system.
Last updated