David Lucas is a Partner and Head of Licensing at Fraser Brown Solicitors and Chairman of the Nottingham Business Improvement District (BID).

Nottingham born and bred, I live, work and socialise in the city. Like everyone else associated with Nottingham, I want it to be a successful and thriving place, a magnet for visitors and somewhere for locals to be proud of, at any time of day or night. The last thing I would want to see is Nottingham declining in popularity or reputation.

However I feel that at the moment this is exactly what is in danger of happening, because we are not offering enough variety in terms of leisure venues. If we are to build on our reputation as a modern and vibrant city, we need to be able to cater for the different demands of the marketplace - and that means providing a broad range of options for our visitors. We must remember this and ensure that Nottingham offers not just something for everyone, but more of a choice for everyone.

The Cumulative Impact Policy or Saturation Zone that was put in place in 2005 may have contributed to improved safety and helped to encourage more families into the city centre. However I feel we have now reached the point where these benefits may have been achieved at the expense of the diversity of Nottingham"s leisure offering.

Not only does the Cumulative Impact Policy restrict the arrival of new venues it can also limit the development of existing premises, by requiring additional or amended conditions to be met whenever a change to the licence or premises is contemplated. When those conditions require capital expenditure, such as installing CCTV or employing additional door staff, operators may decide that the end result does not warrant the expense.

If this is the case for premises already operating within the city, the impact on those looking to set up within the Cumulative Impact Zone is even greater. When choosing between locations, operators consider a range of criteria, including the prospects of obtaining a licence and the conditions likely to be imposed on a licence. Too many obstacles to overcome and they will simply look elsewhere, which is what I fear has been happening over recent years. Yes, it is true (and great news) that Jamie"s Italian and Carluccios are soon to open, but even they had to apply to amend onerous conditions within their new licences, before they began trading. I do wonder how many other responsible operators have gone elsewhere in the meantime.

And what of those smaller, independent operators, the people who may have the seed of a highly successful business but aren"t given a chance to set up in the city or develop existing premises because they cannot afford to challenge the authorities? The demise of the independent shopping boutique is well documented and the licensed trade is no different. If we want to retain diversity and character, we must support responsible operators and independent venues; otherwise our streets will become homogenised versions of every other city centre.

I must make it clear that I am not against the introduction of Cumulative Impact Policies where there is evidence to support them. I simply worry that the way the current powers are used is not beneficial to either the operators of licensed premises or the economic development of the city. For example should a proposal be rejected simply because it doesn"t meet the size criteria?

The concept of a Cumulative Impact Policy was introduced as a tool for Local Authorities to control the proliferation of licensed premises. A council can only create a Cumulative Impact Policy for a specific area where it is established on the basis of good evidence that customers of licensed premises within that area cause crime and disorder. Government guidance states that the policy should be kept under regular review - with the understanding that once the problems of crime and disorder have abated the zone is either removed or reduced.

In Leicester, the City Council and police have worked closely together to implement a Saturation Zone over a small, highly specific area where crime was a problem. Initial requests by the police to enforce the zone over the entire city centre area were refused on the grounds of lack of evidence, and restricted to an area with a high concentration of licensed premises. In a recent review the zone was extended in line with evidence provided by the police, but only to specific streets where this could be justified.

It is this careful consideration of the evidence that I believe has not taken place in the case of Nottingham and especially in relation to the most recent review by the council of its licensing policy. In October I made it clear in a formal objection to the council that as a licensing practitioner at Fraser Brown I was opposed to the continuation of the policy, on the grounds that there was no demonstrable evidence to support it. But not only was the policy retained, it was extended.

We must be mindful about the message that the existence of the Cumulative Impact Policy puts across generally. Cumulative Impact Policies should only be imposed when there is an issue with crime and disorder directly related to specific licensed premises within an area. By extending the Saturation Zone we are effectively saying that our entire city centre is a "problem area". Is this really the message that we want to put out there? I agree wholeheartedly that former Chief Constable Green"s comments did nothing to enhance Nottingham"s reputation, yet here we are implying that despite all our hard work over the past years, the city has not improved.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Regular newspaper articles report police statistics that demonstrate that crime in Nottingham city centre is reducing. In addition the Business Improvement District (BID) is doing its best on a limited budget to implement and support projects such as the taxi marshalling, Best Bar None and Purple Flag schemes, which are beneficial to licensed operators and customers alike.

Now the council and other authorities need to work with the BID and operators of licensed premises not only on these and other similar projects but also on how Nottingham develops and is promoted as a whole.

The majority of licensed premises operate responsibly and their customers behave appropriately. Where there are issues, there are other extensive powers apart from the Cumulative Impact Policy which allow the authorities to target specific problem premises and we have seen examples of them being used to good effect within the city.

Retention of the Cumulative Impact Policy in conjunction with additional licensing reforms being discussed by the Government at the moment could have a serious and damaging impact on licensed premises, putting a sector already struggling under yet more stress.

Yes, it is true that businesses are struggling nationwide, but surely this is a reason to help those fighting to survive in the licensed sector, rather than exert more pressure on them in our city? And survival is exactly the right word for it. While certain establishments may be longstanding fixtures on the night-time scene, this doesn"t mean they are thriving. Most operators will confirm that business has decreased, due in part to a reduction in the numbers of people coming into the city.

Unless we are careful we are in grave danger of entering a downward spiral when it comes to our leisure economy. The fewer premises we have, the less attractive the leisure offer and the less people will visit. The less people visit, the less they spend and the less money comes into the city.

Such is the fear of a return to the "bad old days", of Nottingham regarded as a binge-drinking capital, that the authorities are exerting too much control. I am not suggesting that there shouldn"t be any controls in place, simply that responsible operators are given more encouragement, rather than placing obstacles in the way of development. The city centre isn"t just competing with other cities for visitors, but with its own suburbs, and it is being forced to do so at a disadvantage. Nottingham needs our support if it is to thrive and we all need to work together to promote the city in a positive light and to attract more investment and visitors.