JASMIN site migration for JULES - git

[dcaseGH]

I'll do docs at the end - at the moment is still work in prog but started PR to help review with MO git/cylc/rose stem experts

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: James Bruten (@james-bruten-mo)
Code Reviewer: Cameron Bateman (@cameronbateman-mo)

Code Quality Checklist

(Some checks are automatically carried out via the CI pipeline)

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My code follows the project's style guidelines
• Comments have been included that aid undertanding and enhance the
  readability of the code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• If editing rose-meta/jules-shared then have you supplied a linked UM PR?

Testing

• I have tested this change locally, using the JULES rose-stem suite
• If shared files have been modified, I have run the UM and LFRic Apps rose
  stem suites
• If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and
  acceptable (eg. kgo changes)
• I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (eg. system
  tests, unit tests, etc.)

trac.log

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
• Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

Performance Impact

• Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable
  performance measurements have been conducted

AI Assistance and Attribution

• Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance
  of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise,
  Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the
  Simulation Systems AI policy
  (including attribution labels)

Documentation

• Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and
  confirmed that it builds correctly

Sci/Tech Review

• I understand this area of code and the changes being added
• The proposed changes correspond to the pull request description
• Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
• Sufficient testing has been completed

Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR

Code Review

• All dependencies have been resolved
• Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
• CLA compliance has been confirmed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Documentation is complete and accurate
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable