Of course you may have to go near the 'dreaded' window escape!
Its all down to the basis of reasonably practicable, which is often overlooked by enforcing authorities. Therefore, is it both reasonable (cost dependant) and practical to provide either an internal or external protected route?
Sometimes its a case of just reinstating a few doors, or using a little common sense to create a practical solution. However, fire safety wasn't really on the list of priorities in the 17th, and 18th centuries. So sometimes, we may have to look at the possibility of utilising first floor window escape, because its the only practical option.
The degree of variation of opinion across the country is amazing. Particularly with the enforcing authorities. I do like the phrase, "our policy states we don't accept window escape". Well if that's the case, the enforcing authority is not providing an opinion based on risk; and will be sailing a dodgy ship if challenged. Of course there are other appropriate mitigation measures available, accepting that window escape is not always appropriate.
Equally, there are just some cases where the accommodation is just not suitable for sleeping. However, these are very few and far between.
I agree with Kurnal. It sounds like the domestic areas within the example you provide are unlikely to fall under the normal remit of the fire safety order. However, sometimes I feel the whole building has to be treated with 'common sense', regardless of what side of the fence the 'right thing' falls.