No don't think so. I know a few people who they have stopped insuring, but the company insurance appears to be continuing. Are you a sole trader or limited company?

Been insured as a sole trader with Hiscox since 2012. They have now said that they will no longer be insuring me, as Fire Risk is something they are moving away from. Any suggestions for other companies ?

Such torturous routes were very common last century as the only way in very old city centres (often found in London, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool & Birmingham) of giving existing landlocked buildings a second MoE & was considered better than nothing, along with hatches and doors in party walls, etc.

However guidance has been set against this sort of thing for a long time and the FP Act guides deprecated them too.

Having said that even current guidance accepts ladders, etc - but only in exceptional circumstances.

ADB
Fixed ladders should not be provided as a means of escape for members of the public. They should only be provided where a conventional stair is impractical, such as for access to plant rooms which are not normally occupied.

DCLG/HO
While not normally acceptable, the use of ladders, floor hatches, wall hatches or window exits may be suitable for small numbers of able-bodied, trained staff in exceptional circumstances. (more or less mirroring the FP Act guide other than a prescriptive number which I believe used to be 5 without digging them out)

So I would ask - who are they expecting the route to be used by?

"signed off under fire regulations" implies, as we don't have fire certificates, that either they are fibbing or the broken building control process has just cracked again if this has been accepted for a normal escape for building occupiers as oppose to a plant room or similar (where they are common)

Hi - The principal adopted in ADB 2006 was to put a vent in the corridor adjacent to the stair so that smoke was less likely to enter the stairway.

Naturally venting a corridor doesn't do much for the tenability in the corridor (you need something more sophisticated to do that).

The long-awaited decision by the High Court in the Judicial Review action by campaigners, Cladag, against the Home Office re Government decision on PEEPS has now been published.

The bottom line of the judgement is this:

"This was essentially a political decision for the defendant to take and was not in breach of the requirements of public law and procedural fairness. It must have been desperately disappointing for the claimants and many others that the carefully considered PEEPs recommendations contained in the Phase 1 Report have not been implemented, but it was not an unlawful decision.
The claim is dismissed."

The full judgement can be read here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1794.html