Content

11.1

The Committee considered a report of the
Executive Director of Neighbourhoods, which outlined Sheffield City
Council’s Cremation and Cemetery Services Strategy
2025–2050, setting out a long-term commitment to provide
inclusive, sustainable and high-quality bereavement services for a
growing and diverse population.

 

 

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Communities, Parks and Leisure Policy Committee:-

(a) 
Notes the contents of the report; and

(b) 
Approves the draft Cremation and Cemetery Services Strategy noting
specific commitments to;
·      
Sustainable Service Delivery
·      
Financial and Partnership Framework
·      
Inclusive and Community-Focused Service

 

 

 

 

11.3

Reasons for
Decision

 

 

11.3.1

Sheffield’s Bereavement and Coronial
Services are facing increasing pressure due to a combination of
limited burial space, rising costs and the evolving needs of a
growing and diverse population. Without a clear and comprehensive
strategy, the Council risks running out of burial capacity, failing
to meet the needs of diverse faith and cultural groups and missing
opportunities to embed biodiversity and sustainability within its
green infrastructure. The service also requires a financially
sustainable model that can reinvest in infrastructure and adapt to
long-term pressures. The endorsement of this strategy provides a
proactive, evidence-based plan that ensures dignified, sustainable
and inclusive services for Sheffield’s communities up to
2050.

 

 

 

 

11.4

Alternatives
Considered and Rejected

 

 

11.4.1

Alternative Option 1:
Continue without a Cremation and Cemetery
Services Strategy
The only alternative option considered was to
continue operating without a Cremation and Cemetery Services
Strategy. This option was rejected because it would leave the
Council without a clear, long-term framework to address current
challenges, including limited burial space, rising service costs
and the need for greater cultural and environmental responsiveness.
Without an agreed strategy, the service would remain reactive
rather than proactive, risking capacity shortfalls, financial
instability and declining public confidence. For these reasons,
this option was rejected.