City of York Council steps in to help Stonegate’s Christmas illuminations

Christmas lights in Stonegate, pictured above in a previous year, can go ahead thanks to the council’s £3,500 donation Christmas lights in Stonegate, pictured above in a previous year, can go ahead thanks to the council’s £3,500 donation

ONE of York’s most famous shopping streets will not be left in the dark at Christmas after the council stepped in to help fund this year’s festive lights.

The Press revealed last month how a lack of contributions from shops in Stonegate meant there would not be enough money to pay for the hanging and maintenance of the annual illuminations.

However, in a letter to businesses in the area, Mulberry Hall owner Adam Sinclair said the lights can go ahead thanks to a £3,500 donation from City of York Council. The amount will cover half the costs of this year’s lights while traders will each be sent a bill for £99 to meet the rest of the funding.

Mr Sinclair, who is also chairman of Stonegate Traders, said: “It was always going to be 50/50 between the council and the traders, but why should the council pay for all of it?

“Christmas shopping is our life blood. Stonegate and Minster Gates have been a postcard image of Christmas in York so this is very important for the image of the city.”

Mr Sinclair also proposed a meeting in February between traders to discuss the future of the lights in Stonegate.

As the garlands were hung yesterday ahead of a switch on, business owners in Stonegate welcomed the news that the lights were to return.

Tony Brett, owner of the Pyramid Gallery, said: “This is the right result. I’m pleased the council is offering to pay something towards it and I’m quite happy to contribute my share if this has stimulated contributions from others in the street.”

He also welcomed a chance to discuss the future of Christmas lights in the street.

Mark Smith, manager of Ye Olde Starre Inne said the return of the lights was an “excellent thing” because he feared trade could be hit.

“We have always provided electricity for the lights,” he said. “It would have kept people away if they weren’t here this year.”

Comments(28)

meme says...
11:14am Thu 22 Nov 12

Well done all of them and shame on those retailers who refused to cough up a bit of money

Oaklands Resident says...
11:27am Thu 22 Nov 12

Oh great. Now spending more taxpayers money on fairy lights rather than providing more housing.

Let the retailers pay.

Stressed Out says...
11:38am Thu 22 Nov 12

Nice lights on lamposts in the Station Road, Museum Street areas. I hope we have more to put up. Looked good when I drove to the station this morning, very Blackpool ish!!

AngryandFrustrated says...
11:45am Thu 22 Nov 12

I don't disagree! If the retailers want a nice bright Christmassy street, then they should stick their hands in their pocket. If they don't, then the street should be left in the dark, without Christmas lights, and they would only have themselves to blame.

Either CofYC fund lights throughout the town centre, or don't fund them at all. Personally, I love Christmas, and have my house timmed up as much as poss, but what difference do lights in York make? We hardly have a reputation like Blackpool, so people will come to shop, no matter what. There can be no argument that it generates tourism or additional footfall in the centre.

In times of austerity, and front line services being cut, this falls squarely into the "cut" category and is a waste of money. Stonegate traders, shame on you. If half of the expense amounts to a contribution of £99 per shop, then an additional £99 per trader is hardly breaking the bank. You should hang your heads in shame that money is being wasted because you are too tight to fund the lights yourselves, and shame on the Council for putting up the additional funds.

bob the builder says...
11:45am Thu 22 Nov 12

If you sent me a bill for £99 I'd send it back with a bill for my time for having to do so! What legal right does CofYC think it's enforcing, sending out bills like some scammer? A nationwaide tax on tourism is local authorities should fund these items, add a levy of £1 on hotel rooms to pay for decorations, street planting and furniture etc.

AngryandFrustrated says...
11:47am Thu 22 Nov 12

For the avoidance of doubt, my posting was meant to quote the Oaklands Resident post!

roskoboskovic says...
12:12pm Thu 22 Nov 12

sinclair is more than willing to take advantage of the tourist trade in york and started whinging with his spurrious claims about the new monks cross development.if you want ycc and thus york residents to promote stonegate maybe you should give some of your profits back them.go and set up your shop in selby and see how well it does.

MarkyMarkMark says...
12:32pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Stressed Out wrote:
Nice lights on lamposts in the Station Road, Museum Street areas. I hope we have more to put up. Looked good when I drove to the station this morning, very Blackpool ish!!
+1 !
Nice to see something in places a bit out of the shops but where I actually go!#

York1900 says...
1:14pm Thu 22 Nov 12

When these traders years a go said they would look after putting up there own Christmas lights and did not want including in the council plans for Christmas lights because they could do it cheaper

But now they want the council to give money because some of them want to make more profit at the cost of rest of the council tax payers

In future the council should levy £20 per month on business in York City centra to cover the cost of Christmas lights this money should be put in a special account only for Christmas lights fund

if the business agree to this then the council will then give a % to cover the cost any shop that sets up in York for the Christmas season would be required to pay £100 in to the Christmas Light fund

magic cat says...
1:47pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Well I will be boycotting the traders in Stonegate and suggest others do the same. I do not pay my council tax to have it spent on fripperies!

Twinkle! says...
2:27pm Thu 22 Nov 12

This is all well and good but my mole in the council has raised a couple of good points...

Have the bolts that are trusted to hold these decorations in place been properly tested?

Also. are the decorations fed from an isolated supply such as the street lights or are they still fed from individual sockets from inside the building? If the latter then this is illegal as it contravenes the rules and regulations for a decoration going over a highway.

Sinclair has stamped his feet, spat his dummy out and James Alexander has caved in to this bully boy by shelling out our money!

Meanwhile in other breaking news from my mole...

Betty's on St Helen's Square have demanded that the icicle lights currently adorning their building (yet to be switched on) have to be removed because they don't want them. No matter that it makes St Helen's Square look unfinished.

You just can't win. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Shame on Betty's.

tobefair says...
2:36pm Thu 22 Nov 12

An increase in business rates to recoup the money would be a good idea.

MouseHouse says...
2:38pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Once again we see capitalists being subsidised by the people. These spongers were not willing to pay yet will be first in the queue to exploit them and bank the takings. The council should be banging on their door in the new year demanding payment.

Very poor decision.

mummymetal says...
3:21pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Oaklands Resident wrote:
Oh great. Now spending more taxpayers money on fairy lights rather than providing more housing.

Let the retailers pay.
But what about the amount spent on two firework night fiascos

Blimp says...
3:27pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Forget Stonegate. As from tonight...

Bishyroad lights illuminating marvellous pubs.

Brilliant, love it! More please.

elliehick says...
4:15pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Always something for you all to moan about......bah humbug!

mjr119 says...
4:20pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Have the council donated this or have us idiots who paid to get in to Vic Reeves' Wonderpoundland contributed heavily?

Equally, if I'm not mistaken, the lights hanging down from the tree in said Wonderland, now appear on the tree at Parliament Street near Marks & Spencer!

elliehick says...
4:22pm Thu 22 Nov 12

mummymetal wrote:
Oaklands Resident wrote: Oh great. Now spending more taxpayers money on fairy lights rather than providing more housing. Let the retailers pay.
But what about the amount spent on two firework night fiascos
Actually the council didnt put any firework displays on this year, they were privately funded. The fiasco that was Illuminating York in the Museum Gardens was a council epic fail tho.....

Lucas_of_H says...
4:30pm Thu 22 Nov 12

elliehick wrote:
Always something for you all to moan about......bah humbug!
I said earlier this week that as soon as a story went up on the press site about christmas lights everyone one would be moaning.

Well done to the council for actually putting your hand in your pocket and helping to light one of Yorks most busy tourist filled streets.

bloodaxe says...
4:32pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Oaklands Resident wrote:
Oh great. Now spending more taxpayers money on fairy lights rather than providing more housing.

Let the retailers pay.
Bah, humbug.

elliehick says...
4:34pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Lucas_of_H wrote:
elliehick wrote: Always something for you all to moan about......bah humbug!
I said earlier this week that as soon as a story went up on the press site about christmas lights everyone one would be moaning. Well done to the council for actually putting your hand in your pocket and helping to light one of Yorks most busy tourist filled streets.
here here!! too right Lucas of H!! The council would only have wasted their funding on something that we wouldnt actually see anyway.......any excuse for them to put the council tax up next yr!! oh wait, hang on....they already are!!

bloodaxe says...
4:35pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Twinkle! wrote:
This is all well and good but my mole in the council has raised a couple of good points...

Have the bolts that are trusted to hold these decorations in place been properly tested?

Also. are the decorations fed from an isolated supply such as the street lights or are they still fed from individual sockets from inside the building? If the latter then this is illegal as it contravenes the rules and regulations for a decoration going over a highway.

Sinclair has stamped his feet, spat his dummy out and James Alexander has caved in to this bully boy by shelling out our money!

Meanwhile in other breaking news from my mole...

Betty's on St Helen's Square have demanded that the icicle lights currently adorning their building (yet to be switched on) have to be removed because they don't want them. No matter that it makes St Helen's Square look unfinished.

You just can't win. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Shame on Betty's.
Be grateful. Betty's makes little or no profit and is almost run for the sake of being there. A bit like Starbucks but not, if you get my meaning.

elliehick says...
4:38pm Thu 22 Nov 12

bloodaxe wrote:
Twinkle! wrote: This is all well and good but my mole in the council has raised a couple of good points... Have the bolts that are trusted to hold these decorations in place been properly tested? Also. are the decorations fed from an isolated supply such as the street lights or are they still fed from individual sockets from inside the building? If the latter then this is illegal as it contravenes the rules and regulations for a decoration going over a highway. Sinclair has stamped his feet, spat his dummy out and James Alexander has caved in to this bully boy by shelling out our money! Meanwhile in other breaking news from my mole... Betty's on St Helen's Square have demanded that the icicle lights currently adorning their building (yet to be switched on) have to be removed because they don't want them. No matter that it makes St Helen's Square look unfinished. You just can't win. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Shame on Betty's.
Be grateful. Betty's makes little or no profit and is almost run for the sake of being there. A bit like Starbucks but not, if you get my meaning.
How on earth does Betty's not make any profit? Its over-inflated prices are sky high as it is, and there is always a queue. Dont know what kinda business plan it would need to have to actually make some money then?

Caecilius says...
5:14pm Thu 22 Nov 12

MouseHouse wrote:
Once again we see capitalists being subsidised by the people. These spongers were not willing to pay yet will be first in the queue to exploit them and bank the takings. The council should be banging on their door in the new year demanding payment.

Very poor decision.
From my experience of living in York and in Harrogate, that's North Yorkshire in a nutshell. Council tax is spent on things that will generate profit for members of the local Chamber of Commerce but will do little or nothing for the ordinary residents who foot the bill.

Silver says...
5:50pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Well it's now a precedent next year it will be funded by us and the year after. So as time goes on our share of this will go up as private businesses realise if they don't pay anyway it'll still be there regardless.
Well done to CYC for not making people accountable for their actions.

Mark Brayshaw says...
9:15pm Thu 22 Nov 12

mummymetal wrote:
Oaklands Resident wrote:
Oh great. Now spending more taxpayers money on fairy lights rather than providing more housing.

Let the retailers pay.
But what about the amount spent on two firework night fiascos
Hey Mummymetal, would you care to elaborate on which two firework fiasco's you are referring to?

There were three major displays in York. I know you can't be referring to Kaboom - just check out the amazing videos on YouTube and the great comments on Facebook. As far as I am aware, the one at York Maze was equally enjoyed by thousands of people so that just leaves one other display that 'ran' into problems.

Maybe you are just guilty of not being able to count, but in any case elliehick is completely correct - all three displays were privately funded. Furthermore there is absolutely no correlation between fireworks and Christmas lights

m dee says...
10:15am Fri 23 Nov 12

Oaklands Resident wrote:
Oh great. Now spending more taxpayers money on fairy lights rather than providing more housing.

Let the retailers pay.
Have to agree,good of them to use the taxpayers money to give the national retailers and their shareholders Christmas bonus.

YorkPatrol says...
1:44pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Oaklands Resident wrote:
Oh great. Now spending more taxpayers money on fairy lights rather than providing more housing. Let the retailers pay.
We don't want any more housing – York is getting a bit overcrowded now and the bypass is a lot busier than it used to be. Anyone without a house should move somewhere where there is some


It’s the council’s responsibility to light up the streets at Christmas! Next you’ll be thinking it’s the retailers reasonability to repair the roads and paths as some of their customers walk/drive on them…

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree