England's school sprinkler rethink

I was visiting a school last week and as we were walking up to the office we passed a new block being built on site. We got chatting about their plans for the build and in conversation he mentioned that back in January the DfE had quietly changed the guidance on sprinklers in new school buildings. So I had a look when I got home.

It seems that buried in Section 9.1 of the DfE's new Technical Manual for school construction is a single line that reads: "The use of BB 100 (2007 version) is no longer required."

Which meant, in practical terms, that for a building like the one going up behind us: sprinklers were no longer required.

No press release. No dedicated statement. No formal response to the public consultation that had been waiting five years for an answer. The National Fire Chiefs Council — arguably the most relevant professional body in the country to have a view on this — weren't consulted before publication. They found out the same way everyone else did.

By March, the Construction Industry Council had written to the Secretary of State expressing serious concern about the decision, describing itself as "deeply worried" about the future of school buildings and warning of significant challenges and costs for communities following fires in buildings designed under the new standard. The letter made clear what the DfE had left unsaid: the reasoning behind the change.

The cost argument is where this gets interesting. And the numbers, when you look at them properly, don't tell a simple story.

What BB100 actually said

Building Bulletin 100 had been the accepted design standard for school fire safety since 2007. The principle was simple: new schools should include sprinklers by default. If you wanted to design without them, you had to make a formal case using two assessment tools developed by the Building Research Establishment. The burden was on justifying the exception — not the inclusion.

It wasn't law. BB100 was non-statutory guidance. But architects designed to it, local authorities expected it, and contractors priced for it. For nearly two decades, it was the standard.

When the DfE launched a formal review in 2019 and ran a public consultation from May to August 2021, responses were submitted. Then five years passed. And then, without a formal consultation reply, BB100 was superseded by the new CF25 framework — one line in a procurement document serving as the answer to hundreds of submissions.

What the new position says

Under CF25, sprinklers are now only required in new school buildings of four or more storeys (or 11 metres or more in height), those with residential accommodation, and all special schools and special colleges. The retention of that last category matters — it's not nothing.

But for the majority of new school buildings in England — most primaries, most single and two-storey secondaries — there is now no sprinkler recommendation. Not "preferred where feasible." Not "consider at design stage." The guidance is simply silent.

What the numbers say

Home Office data for fire incidents in education premises recorded 417 school fires in 2024/25 — roughly 8 a week. Arson accounts for approximately 60% of them.

Research published by the National Fire Sprinkler Network in February 2026 found that where sprinklers were installed and activated, they extinguished the fire in 71% of cases and contained or controlled it in a further 27% — an overall effectiveness rate of 98%. According to NFSN modelling, a secondary school has a 70% probability of experiencing a fire over a 30-year operational period. That's less a risk question and more a question of timing.

Now for the cost argument. There are a few examples, one being Northumberland County Council documenting that the DfE declined to fund sprinklers at Seaton Valley High School on cost grounds, citing approximately £1.25 million for that specific large secondary complex. It's a real number, for a real school, and the kind of figure that shapes a departmental policy conversation.

The industry estimate for sprinklers installed at the design stage of a new build sits at 1–1.5% of total construction cost. For a £10 million school, that's between £100,000 and £150,000.

Selsey Academy caught fire in August 2016. It was rebuilt for £13.4 million. It reopened without sprinklers.

Those aren't contradictions — they're the same question at different points in the same timeline. What they do together is put a number on what deferring the sprinkler budget in a new build can eventually cost.

Where the rest of the UK stands

Scotland mandated sprinklers in all new school buildings following a series of significant fires. Wales made them a condition of government grant funding for new school construction. England has now moved in the opposite direction.

What's difficult to identify is the new evidence that changed the risk calculation in England differently from anywhere else. The fire statistics have worsened since BB100 was published, not improved. Arson hasn't declined. The performance of sprinklers hasn't changed.

Who wasn't consulted — and what they said

The more significant omission is the NFCC. The fire chiefs had already submitted a formal response to the 2021 BB100 consultation — their position was clearly on record — yet they weren't consulted before the guidance changed. Neither was the construction industry. The CIC found out via the published document and wrote to the Secretary of State. The NFCC's position remains unchanged: sprinklers in all new and refurbished schools.

The DfE, responding publicly, stated that "where sprinklers are considered necessary to protect pupils and staff, they must be installed" — a reference to the building regulations requirement that applies to certain building types, not a reaffirmation of the previous presumption in favour of sprinklers across all new schools. The statement doesn't address the removal of the default expectation.

The timescale worth sitting with

CF25 is already flagged for review before the end of 2026, so the current position may not be fixed.

But schools built under this guidance will still be standing in 2065, 2075, 2080. The absence of sprinklers in a school built this year isn't a decision that expires at the next budget review — it expires when the building does. The premises staff who'll manage that building in 2060 haven't started their careers yet.

For anyone working through a new build or major refurbishment now, it's probably worth knowing that the NFCC's recommendation and the DfE's procurement standard are no longer aligned — and that the conversation with your fire engineer is considerably easier before the design stage closes than after it.

Statlog....More then just compliance in premises software