Our data takes the form of in-depth interview transcripts discussing the relationship between local independent businesses and Cambridge as a place. The first round of data collection took place in 2017 to discover, explore and evaluate the relationship between small and medium-sized businesses and community development within Cambridge. At the time of rapid change and a turbulent economic environment it was important to understand how local independent businesses interact with, and rely on, the locale and community in which they are based. Leading on from the first phase, this project and a second round of data collection was employed to return to Cambridge in 2022 to further investigate how the implementation of Brexit and the arrival of the pandemic has impacted upon local independent businesses and the original issues uncovered. The aim is to drive debate and discussion towards a more diverse local business environment. This is of key significance given micro, small, and medium sized firms (SMEs) are most at risk of failure post-pandemic and in the escalating energy crisis. Such SMEs are not just important local employers but are also the main way to increase regional resilience and make Cambridge feel like a ‘home town’ with distinctive independent retailers as opposed to how the New Economics Foundation refers to the city as a ‘clone town’ full of national chain stores and devoid of local character. Topics covered included local networking, local enterprise support, belonging, power, community development and inequality. Our recent research found that such businesses agreed that without the University of Cambridge, its unique communication channel and supply of labour, the city would be much less successful as it finds itself today. However, many businesses also felt the increased growth has led to increased pressures within the city due to constrained land supply and a tightly-drawn green belt. This, coupled with the current cost of living crisis, has seen business costs rise excessively increasing demands on already stretched independent businesses. A recurring theme throughout our study, therefore, was ‘them versus us’ regarding the power dynamic between local independent businesses (who form an integral part of the local economy) and the key stakeholders and policy makers within Cambridge. While some firms may find they succeed, it appears to be the smaller independent businesses who struggle the most within the city as they may not have sufficient footfall, nor the capital reserves required to loudly market themselves and/or overcome the high costs associated with being located within Cambridge. As such, many of these independent businesses felt unappreciated, overlooked, and under-supported.Is entrepreneurship a matter of place? This was the question that my PhD research undertaken across four case studies in East Anglia, UK (Cambridge, Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, Norwich) answered, showing how, when and where everyday entrepreneurship occurs and the different mechanisms of entrepreneurial attachment to place in terms of individual entrepreneurs' temporal orientations: place as it was, place as it is, and place as it could be. It is the notion of 'evolving places' that goes hand-in-hand with the societal struggles for power and the distribution of resources and opportunities in shaping the policy need to think about maintenance of entrepreneurial attachment if we want places to be cared for by their people and to influence change, bridging the gaps between 'unequal' stakeholders. This has become increasingly pertinent within a post-Brexit, Covid-19, reduced migratory context - the emphasis is now firmly placed on local contexts and how they perform, driving the proposed PDF. Drawing on my PhD's work and returning to one of my case studies with the PDF objectives in mind, I plan to publish about entrepreneurial (im)mobility in both prosperous and depleted places, whilst arguing towards a 'place-based' understanding of policy and more contextually relevant use of public spending. This counters mounting criticism of scholarly work paying insufficient attention to spatial and contextual factors when examining entrepreneurial phenomena (Welter et al 2019) and is particularly fitting in Covid-19 times with the pandemic unfolding unevenly across different socioeconomic groups, geographical areas and localities in the UK (Dorling 2020). Indeed, with reports in a surge of would-be homebuyers moving out of cities to smaller places as people conclude that home working is here to stay (Jones 2020), spatially discriminatory inequalities come to the forefront especially when the pandemic itself can be considered racist (Channel 4 Documentary 2020). Empirically examining evolving places for everyday entrepreneurship in this manner is crucial from a policy perspective to mitigate the uneven spatial impact of the crisis on the economy and create (or sustain) local jobs. Given that the UK is already one of the most inter-regionally unequal countries in the developed world (McCann 2020) and the 'levelling-up' mantra is now even harder to achieve due to Covid-19 (Brown and Cowling 2021), there is increased need for targeted, contextualised regional policy (less spatially blind) to alleviate the territorial dimensions of inequality and social exclusion and overcome the pandemic's scarring socioeconomic effects. Complementing the academic impact of publishing, presenting and disseminating the above research with non-academic audiences is a key feature of the PDF. High impact value initiatives such as a stakeholder workshop generating debate about the spatial dimension of social exclusion, patterns of spatial segregation, and how urban disadvantage can impact localised (self)employability extends the reach of the proposed body of work, ensuring an accessible way for important local stakeholder groups to connect anew and benefit from the PDF's impact as the starting point for a wider, less power-driven, conversation. Redressing the, now increasingly severe, spatially expressed inequalities heeds recommendations to map social exclusion at a lower level to tailor the need for political counter action (Talbot et al 2015). Invited stakeholders will include business associations, tourism boards, chambers of commerce, HAs, guilds, business forums, business support organisations, Cambridge [University] Hub and local councils amongst others. In doing so, this can turn potentially negative personal relationships with place into a positive; countering the frequently made claim 'there's nothing here for us' instead giving hope through bridging societal struggles for power and embracing the positive available aspects of 'evolving places'.

To gain access to these 'everyday' entrepreneurs, purposive sampling was employed using the local authority’s dataset for local business rates. Whilst this data set may omit a few smaller entrepreneurs operating out of homes rather than purpose-built facilities, it is the most comprehensive list available for businesses in the region. The key selection criterion was that the businesses are privately owned independents, as this implies a stronger emotional tie between the entrepreneurs, their ventures and, most importantly, place (Byrne and Shepherd 2015). The data set was then combed through row by row to delete businesses which were not privately owned and any multiple entries, with the remaining list then broken down into the proportions of different business sectors existing within the city using the Valuation Office’s analysis codes and our knowledge of local ventures. In 2017 twenty randomly selected entrepreneurs underwent in-depth interviews, ensuring that the variety and proportion of local voices were heard by using this sectoral quota and that the sample was large enough to produce themes. Upon returning to the case study for the second phase in 2022 13 of these individuals agreed to a follow-up interview.