It concerns me that option 1 recommendations appear to be subject to an additional layer of scrutiny that does not seem to apply where engineers' recommendations are options 2, 3, 4 or 5. Can the Minister explain the rationale and outline the safeguards in place to ensure constant evidential engineering standards across the remediation options? Furthermore, where an independent I.S. 465 chartered engineer has assessed the property, determined the damaged threshold has been met and has recommended option 1, why is a…