Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: September 15, 2025

Purpose:

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.