Question 26. Do you think we should be protecting existing business and industrial space?

yes although many shops should be converted to housing/offices as shops will decline in number.

On balance yes

Only if providing value locally, and not negatively impacting the climate and biodiversity. Also some are quite unsightly, so perhaps more could be done to make them look nice? Tree screens and more requirements for nicer exteriors, perhaps?

Yes, in appropriate circumstances but not if the business is defunct or the premises wholly unsuitable for current needs or expansion.

Yes, if it means that homes and jobs are not separated by long commute distances.

Only if required considering up to date commercial demand (that should be reviewed at least annually) and the changing nature of work.

Yes, jobs in rural areas should be actively protected as they present valuable opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint of small rural communities. For example, preserve agricultural ties on property and reject change of use applications to turn rural businesses (like Public Houses) into dwellings.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances – including where the site is specifically allocated for employment - but not if the business is defunct, the premises unsuitable for current needs or the site area very small.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances – including where the site is specifically allocated for employment - but not if the business is defunct, the premises unsuitable for current needs or the site area very small.

Definitely for local independent businesses

Yes, in appropriate circumstances – including where the site is specifically allocated for employment - but not if the business is defunct, the premises unsuitable for current needs or the site area very small.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances – including where the site is specifically allocated for employment - but not if the business is defunct, the premises unsuitable for current needs or the site area very small.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances but not if the business is defunct or the premises wholly unsuitable for current needs or expansion. A more flexible and pragmatic approach needs to be taken, with policies imposing draconian time-limits for the marketing of sites before the Council will countenance changes of use.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances but not if the business is defunct or the premises wholly unsuitable for current needs or expansion. A more flexible and pragmatic approach needs to be taken, with the deletion of policies imposing draconian time- limits for the marketing of sites before the Council will countenance changes of use.

The College recognises there is a need for a wide range of job opportunities. However, given the dynamism of modern economies and sectoral growth, it considers a flexible policy is needed in terms of protecting existing business and industrial space, as there is often need for redevelopment and refurbishment of outdated accommodation.

A ‘blanket approach’ to the protection of existing business and industrial space would be inappropriate and conflict with the NPPF which clearly identifies circumstances where employment land or premises that is not allocated for such purposes might be better utilised for other purposes (paragraph 121). Rather, in preparation of the GCLP, the plan-making authorities should objectively assess existing, available and planned employment land, to identify those sites that are most suited to continuing employment use to meet the needs of the GCLP area in meeting ambitions for economic growth.

All types. There has been a tendency for older and generally poorer quality industrial and related concerns to be redeveloped for either housing or for office/hi-tech type uses. Those, sometimes quasi-industrial uses are still needed, and they are needed within the city otherwise there are further adverse transport impacts. Examples include car repair garages and sales, builders’ yards, driving schools, undertakers, laundries, petrol stations, and open storage uses. All such uses employ people locally but also provide important local services. The growth of on-line retailing inevitably results in the demand for more warehousing space which needs to be accommodated somewhere on appropriately located accessible sites. There is possibly a case for ‘transfer-type’ warehousing outside of Cambridge where goods are switched to smaller vehicles for delivery into the City and HGV delivery lorries are suppressed or their operating hours controlled. This is an approach advocated by paragraph 82 of the NPPF. There is also a need to recognise that there is a greater demand for flexible and home working and appropriate technology needs to be incorporated into all forms of development to allow this to occur. Finally, there are a number of growing small businesses in the high-tech sector in the Plan area. Many of these do not wish to be located on large scale business or research parks and indeed may not be overly suitable for such parks, which tend to be office/lab dominated. Therefore, there is a need for a greater level of high-tech manufacturing/production space in suitable locations. This sector is generally best located out of Cambridge itself and so there should be allocations for new employment land in key villages and larger allocations, such as Fulbourn and Abington Park Farm where there are local services, planned public transport improvements and existing/planned housing growth.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances but not if the business is defunct or the premises wholly unsuitable for current needs or expansion. A more flexible and pragmatic approach needs to be taken, with policies imposing draconian time-limits for the marketing of sites before the Council will countenance changes of use.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances but not if the business is defunct or the premises are wholly unsuitable for current needs or expansion. A more flexible and pragmatic approach needs to be taken, with policies imposing draconian time-limits for the marketing of sites before the Council will countenance changes of use.

Existing small businesses? Small independent businesses? Like market traders? Like Mill Road traders? Like people who run small shops in local shopping centres (no, not those huge sterile, soul-less monstrosities, I mean small local shopping arcades like on Norfolk Street). Oh yes. With every ounce of strength you’ve got. We all should.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances – including where the site is specifically allocated for employment - but not if the business is defunct, the premises unsuitable for current needs or the site area very small.

Nothing can be sacred as we face the climate crisis.

New type of jobs are being created all the time. Make sure these can have a place to grow. People affected in"old" jobs should be taken care of and be given new opportunities.

Do not allow edge of town car based shopping to be built as this undermines the health of existing local centres.

No. We should actually be downsizing to stay within our ecological boundaries, particularly in water.

Yes, in appropriate circumstances but not if the business is defunct, the premises unsuitable for current needs or if the site/employment use is limited in size/scale.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association believes it is important to maintain the existing spaces for businesses and shops within our local community, they are a valuable resource. In planning further developments, more provision could be made for local supermarkets. Following the growth of population in Trumpington, it would be desirable to have an additional local supermarket, although we recognise that there is no suitable location.

Only if it is good for the environment, which we need to survive.

Yes, see my previous answers. Without small businesses and light industries we will become a town for commuters and tourists only

Yes, this is essential for sustainable development and avoidance of jobs being forced out of the existing urban areas to locations with fewer sustainable travel options for people accessing those jobs from outside Greater Cambridge.