# data[].attributes.headline
No allowances for structural alterations were identified in Lorne feasibility costs

# data[].attributes.subject
No allowances for structural alterations were identified in Lorne feasibility costs

# data[].attributes.headline
C&B did not include sufficient MEP allowances in feasibility cost plan - eg. did not allow for replacement pipework for heating system, leading to cost increases at Stage 2

# data[].attributes.subject
C&B did not include sufficient MEP allowances in feasibility cost plan - eg. did not allow for replacement pipework for heating system, leading to cost increases at Stage 2

# data[].attributes.headline
Could PHPP be hosted as a record rather than a WiP file? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Could PHPP be hosted as a record rather than a WiP file? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Opening up programmed for the end of Stage 2, but where findings were significant CEC then asked for us to update reporting - leading to scope creep. could opening up be programmed earlier? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Opening up programmed for the end of Stage 2, but where findings were significant CEC then asked for us to update reporting - leading to scope creep. could opening up be programmed earlier? 

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Thompson at CEC advised insurers have a requirement that all new internal wall linings are non-combustable. CEC's insurers are AIG at present. This has meant tweaks to our Lorne internal wall build up to external walls (However, in relation to non-CEC projects, Andrew pointed out that this requirement could be policy specific and their policy negotiated by a broker, meaning that it does not necessarily mean that all policies through AIG stipulate this requirement)

# data[].attributes.body
Lorne grade B listed building - this is delegated to Local Authority (not HES) who are more by the book apparently. They are also not willing to engage in any pre-planning discussion

# data[].attributes.body
CEC had options 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b. We have reduced this for other studies, yet finding the recent discussion for Brunstane/Liberton is looking at where 100kWh/m2.a is sitting and this is finding that the nuance of a and b are getting discussed. Is having option 2, 3 and 4 enough?

Also - if NTPSB Standard is adopted - does this put into question how we will approach the options in future?

# data[].attributes.body
Is this feasible, given how different all projects are?
Does it make sense to do PHPPs if we don't have opening up info to verify build-ups?
Would it be better to do a qualitative report?

# data[].attributes.headline
Standardize line style in Kinship detail

# data[].attributes.subject
Standardize line style in Kinship detail

# data[].attributes.body
Noticed on the external wall detail we have stored on our Revit family library has a different line style and colour than the project we had been referencing, eg air-tightness line.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do we see the studies and options utilised if NTPSB becomes the norm

# data[].attributes.subject
How do we see the studies and options utilised if NTPSB becomes the norm

# data[].attributes.body
Could we have a set of technical notes which inform qualative feasilbity study

# data[].attributes.body
Take to Ann Marie? Clare/Ruth to draft list of concerns

# data[].attributes.body
We thought DesignPH would be quicker but actually if Revit model set up correctly (need to amend spec to Multivista or A N Other) this may be better?

# data[].attributes.body
Need to add levels of detail - eg RICS