Most modern cities have developed a night-time economy and a lively one can be beneficial to the city’s overall economic status. However, it is recognised that with this activity often comes a number of problems, most of which are caused by people who have consumed too much alcohol. Plymouth has a large number of licensed premises many of which, like most cities, are concentrated in particular areas. As a result, the level of alcohol related incidents in those areas is significantly higher than elsewhere in the city. One of the tools that can be used to help limit the spread of licensed premises is the adoption of a saturation policy. A saturation policy allows for any new license applications received for a premise within the defined saturation zone to be refused on the grounds of ‘cumulative impact’ (this is explained later in the report) and the onus is placed on the applicant to prove that the premise involved will not add to the problems already being experienced in the area. When the panel began its initial investigations into the possibility of a saturation policy for Plymouth, as part of the Anti-Social Behaviour scrutiny review, many of us and indeed many of those we spoke to then and during this review, were in favour of its adoption. However, it soon became apparent that as well as the benefits this could bring there were also two significant disadvantages, namely that a saturation policy could – • restrict new opportunities and thus development of the night-time economy • open the door to ‘bidding wars’ for licensed premises within the saturation zone Bearing this in mind, we thought it would be beneficial to explore fully the alternatives that were available to us and our partners before we made our final recommendations to Cabinet. We thus began our review into ‘Alternatives to a Saturation Policy’.