Organisers of the St Neots Festival have won a fight to hold their annual event after launching the community festival last year.

Some neighbours had tried to get the plans thrown out, raising concerns about the licence application for the festival, and the event’s impact on the area.

However, councillors at Huntingdonshire District Council said they were happy with the event going ahead.

A licence to hold the festival annually at Priory Park in St Neots had been applied for by Ben Pitt, one of the organisers from Neotisits CIC.

The licence asked for permission to be able to hold events at the park including plays, live and recorded music, and performances of dance.

However, concerns were raised by neighbours about the lack of a limit on how many events the group could host at the park.

At a meeting of the district council’s licensing sub-committee on June 13, one member of the public said the area around Priory Park was residential and that they were “not prepared to be Glastonbury”.

Mr Pitt said he recognised these concerns and said they would be happy to add a condition restricting the licence to holding one event per year.

He explained that the intention had been to try and get a more flexible licence to potentially look at holding a few smaller events in the year.

Mr Pitt said it was “never the intention” to hold numerous events a year, but recognised the licence application had caused concern, and said he hoped the proposed limit to one event per year would address this.

He said the festival was run by volunteers and was a “family orientated” event.

Mr Pitt explained that the festival aims to “support and celebrate” the arts in St Neots and give a platform to theatre groups, dance groups, and choirs.

He said it offered a new “cultural experience” which the organisers hoped would encourage people to “pursue creative habits”.

Mr Pitt added that they also wanted to raise awareness of Priory Park itself for people to come and enjoy it.

He said thousands of people came to attend the free event last year and said feedback organisers had received from a survey following the festival was “overwhelmingly positive”.

Some of those who originally objected said they were happy with the festival going ahead if the organisers were limited to one event per year, but other neighbours said they were still unhappy.

One woman said: “[Priory Park] is beautiful if you leave it alone. I am furious because you keep doing this to this park, you say you love it but you can’t. You could have gone somewhere else.”

Another man raised safety concerns about people parking on pavements and edges of roads during the event.

Mr Pitt highlighted they had arranged a parking suspension along Huntingdon Road and in some side roads during the festival last year, and said they intended to do that again.

The festival organisers also highlighted the shuttle bus they put on to offer a way for people to get to the festival without driving.

One of the objectors brought a lawyer with them to raise their concerns.

He claimed the application for the festival licence was “one of the worst” he had seen and tried to get the application dismissed before the hearing due to errors he claimed had been made.

However, the sub-committee said the information submitted was “sufficient” to show what was being requested, and said the number of people who had submitted objections showed people were aware of the plans and able to comment.

The sub-committee considered all of the arguments that had been made at the hearing in private.

The district council published its decision this week (June 18) in which it said the licence was granted, subject to a number of conditions, including that only one event was held a year over two consecutive days.

They also said the district council should be notified of the exact date of the festival as soon as it is agreed for each year, but not later than three months before it takes place.

In the decision notice, the district council said the “clarity provided” by the festival organisers was “deemed sufficient” to satisfy the main concerns that had been raised.

It also said that the conditions imposed on the licence were considered “sufficient” to reduce the concerns neighbours had shared.