In message , at 15:06:04 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

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.

That's down to fire doors, and we have yet to see the conclusions drawn
by the enquiry.

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.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

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.

"Essential" is a little prejudicial. I'll go with "very helpful" at this
stage.

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.

As far as I can see they weren't changed in the redevelopment.
--
Roland Perry