In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question, not
a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke getting
into it. Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There
weren't even any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services -
not.

That, to me, is the important part any investigation has to explain. An
escape route is the last resort which is by far more important than any
other.

Adding a second staircase with the same woeful disregard for making it
conform to what is already common knowledge is simply throwing good
money after bad.

Why assume here was any woeful disregard in the design of the first
staircase?

I'm not - you are by suggesting a second staircase is essential. I'm
guessing the original design of the staircase and public landings etc was
compromised by the redevelopment. And not picked up by a decent inspection
afterwards.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.