Executive meeting on Tuesday, 14 April 2026

Written representation in relation to agenda item 7, York Christmas Market Operating Hours and Economic Impact

Dear Executive Members,

I strongly object to the proposal to reduce the York Christmas Market from 7 days to 6 days per week on a trial basis.

As a hotel operator in York city centre, my business is directly dependent on the consistency, reputation, and reliability of the Christmas market. The proposed “rest day” presents a material risk to bookings, visitor confidence, and the wider hospitality economy, which in my view is underestimated and inadequately mitigated in this report.

1. Impact on Hotel Bookings and Overnight Economy

The report acknowledges that the Christmas market supports overnight stays yet significantly underplays how fragile booking behaviour is in reality.

· Visitors – particularly coach groups and international tourists – book based on the assumption that the market operates daily.

· A single closure day introduces uncertainty, which is likely to:

o Reduce forward bookings

o  Increase cancellations

o Shift demand away from York to competing destinations.

The report assumes displacement of demand (25–75%), but this is not reflective of how tourism operates. Visitors do not simply “switch days”—they often choose a different city entirely if availability or clarity is reduced.

This is especially critical given:

· 44% of visitors stay overnight (para. 29)

· Overnight visitors generate disproportionately higher spend.

A disruption to this segment will have far greater economic consequences than modelled.

2. Coach Tourism and Group Travel Risk

The report does not adequately consider coach operators, who are a major contributor to winter trade.

· Coach itineraries are fixed well in advance

·  They require certainty of offer on the day of arrival

·  A weekly closure creates a commercial disincentive to include York in itineraries.

This risks:

· Loss of large-volume bookings

·  Long-term displacement beyond 2026 (not just a “trial” impact).

Once removed from tour programmes, York may be difficult to reinstate in future seasons.

3. Reputational Risk is Underestimated

Paragraphs 12 and 41 acknowledge reputational risk but overestimate the effectiveness of communications.

In practice:

· Many visitors do not read detailed pre-travel information

· Day visitors and tourists already enroute will arrive expecting a full market

· A closed market will lead to:

o Visitor frustration

o Negative reviews

o Complaints directed at hotels and local businesses.

Hotel operators will be placed in the position of:

· Managing dissatisfaction

·  Issuing refunds or goodwill gestures

· Absorbing reputational damage for a decision outside their control.

This risk is systemic and unavoidable, not something that can be solved through marketing.

4. Flawed Economic Assumptions

The economic modelling contains several weaknesses:

· It admits difficulty in isolating market-driven footfall (para. 9, 32)

· It relies on a “blended” estimate between two extremes (para. 31), reducing reliability

·  It assumes displacement of demand without strong evidence

Critically:

· The estimated loss of £2.6m–£7.82m is already described as “significant”

· This does not include:

o Lost accommodation bookings made in advance

o Secondary spending outside the city centre

o Long-term behavioural change in visitors.

The true economic impact is therefore likely substantially higher than presented.

5. Misalignment with Economic Strategy

The proposal conflicts with the Council’s own stated objectives:

· Supporting a “vibrant and resilient city centre economy”

· Promoting inclusive growth

· Sustaining independent businesses and hospitality.

Reducing the operating days of the city’s most economically significant event risks undermining these goals.

6. Disproportionate Impact on Hospitality Sector

The report suggests a rest day may benefit some users, but it does not fairly assess the sectoral imbalance of impact:

· Hospitality and accommodation businesses rely on continuous footfall

· A weekly interruption reduces:

o Occupancy rates

o Length of stay

o Food and beverage spend.

Meanwhile, any benefit to accessibility is:

· Limited to one day

· Not guaranteed to generate equivalent economic activity.

7. Operational Burden on Businesses

Hotels and front-line businesses will bear the consequences of:

· Explaining closures to confused visitors

· Managing complaints and expectations

·  Adjusting staffing and pricing models.

This represents a cost shift from the Council to private businesses, which is not acknowledged in the report.

8. Alternative Approach

If accessibility improvements are required, alternative options should be prioritised that do not damage the city’s core economic driver, such as:

· Enhanced accessibility measures during operating days

·  Improved crowd management and infrastructure

·  Targeted quiet hours rather than full closure days.

A full-day closure is a disproportionate intervention.

9.      Conclusion

The proposed 6-day operation introduces:

· Significant economic risk

· Disproportionate impact on hospitality businesses

· High likelihood of reputational damage

· Uncertain and overstated benefits

The Christmas market is a critical economic asset, and its strength lies in consistency, reliability, and reputation. Introducing a weekly closure undermines all three.

I therefore strongly urge the Executive to:

· Reject the 6-day trial proposal, and

·  Retain the current 7-day operation model while exploring alternative accessibility solutions.

Kind regards,

Samantha Ashby

General Manager

The Queens Hotel & Victoria Cloisters