Fire Strategy in Listed Buildings: Practical Solutions for London Projects

Many listed buildings in London were never designed to meet modern fire safety expectations. They were built for a different time, different uses, and very different levels of occupancy. Today, those same buildings must operate safely, legally, and without damaging protected fabric.

That tension sits at the centre of most heritage fire strategy work.

Camberwell Public Baths is a good example. Originally built in 1892, the building is Grade II listed and retains much of its original layout and structure. While its heritage value is clear, those same features create real constraints when introducing modern fire safety measures. Protected walls, historic doors, original circulation routes, and open volumes often limit what can physically be altered.

In listed buildings, the challenge is rarely a lack of guidance. It is the opposite. Standard approaches to fire safety often assume that compartmentation, enclosure, and physical alteration are available options. In heritage buildings, they often are not.

Common constraints in listed buildings

Across London, the same issues appear repeatedly:

• Limited ability to alter walls, doors, or ceilings

• Original layouts that do not align with modern escape standards

• Long travel distances that cannot easily be reduced

• Protected finishes and features that restrict passive upgrades

Trying to force standard solutions into these buildings usually leads to delay, disagreement with conservation teams, or schemes that look compliant on paper but fail in practice.

What can be changed and what usually cannot

Effective fire strategy in listed buildings starts with understanding where intervention is genuinely possible.

Some measures may be acceptable with careful detailing. Others may be entirely off limits. The role of fire strategy is to work within those boundaries, not ignore them.

This often means focusing on:

• Managing risk through use, management, and occupancy

• Improving detection and warning rather than physical separation

• Using existing compartmentation intelligently rather than replacing it

• Testing assumptions around evacuation and response, rather than defaulting to prescriptive standards

The aim is not to avoid improvement, but to make improvement realistic.

A practical approach to risk

In heritage buildings, fire strategy should be proportionate and evidence led. It should reflect how the building actually operates, not how guidance assumes it should operate.

That means early engagement, careful surveys, and honest discussion about what is achievable. It also means accepting that compliance is not always about adding more measures, but about understanding risk properly and controlling it in a way that fits the building.

This approach supports life safety without unnecessary intervention, avoids late stage redesign, and stands up to scrutiny from approving authorities.

We are regularly appointed on London projects to review and develop fire strategies for listed and heritage buildings where standard solutions do not fit the building or its use. The focus is always the same: practical fire safety that respects the building and supports its continued use.