Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I doubt William Rose rely on having a door open in order to keep their products at the right temperature .


Refrigeration and chilling units work far more efficiently in a cool than a warm atmosphere - so by keeping the shop 'naturally' aid-conditioned during working hours in the winter, when people (generating about a half kilowat of heat each) are in the shop, less power will be needed for the refrigeration and chilling units in the shop to maintain the required low temperatures to store food safely.


The same would be true for Iceland.


William Rose would probably want to have the shop windows shaded and the door shut during a summer heatwave.

This news that leaving doors open allows heat to escape is certainly a revelation.


I wonder, I just wonder if it could be at all possible - that the various small businesses struggling along lordship lane with all the pressures, financial and otherwise, that running a small business entails - could have considered matters like this already; weighed up the pros on cons (type of shop and entrance, regularity of footfall etc) and come to a logical conclusion all of their own accord.


But I'm sure they'd be delighted to get some uber-patronising pointers from three Cambridge academics with too much time on their hands all the same.

Thanks George W. This sort of 'you're either with us or you're evil' logic turns me off. There will be plenty of people who care about the community and the environment who do not support your campaign or who focus their efforts on other campaigns.


Close the Door Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For anyone who does care about their community,

> environment and the conditions staff are expected

> to tolerate in their local shops - not everyone it

> seems - there is plenty of research on the

> campaign website at the top of this thread. Re the

> question about revolving doors - these are

> excellent for conserving heat inside and allowing

> high customer traffic (so long as there is a good

> disabled entrance alongside as in some M&S

> branches) but with obvious downsides when it comes

> to space and cost.

OK I will spell this out.


It seems that Close the Door has assumed that people who don't support this campaign don't care about the environment, local community etc. In my case this is not true. Not only does this campaign not move me to support it, the tone of voice in which it has been communicated makes me want to actively object to it - despite my pretty decent green leanings. I suspect I am not alone in this.

Yes - in temperatures below 16 and above 24 degrees C it is easier to maintain CIBSE guidelines for healthy working conditions by putting on the heating/air con and closing the door. If heating/aircon are not on then the door doesn't need to be closed and natural ventilation will help.
I don't know about anyone else but it certainly makes a difference to me whether a shop has its door open or closed. I want to go in the shop, have a quick look around, buy something if it takes my fancy and then leave again. Having to open the door makes me far too conspicuous so I would tend to forego that impulsive browse and walk on by.
Yes - proper air curtains are disrupted by anything passing through the air current and therefore not suitable for entrances - they were originally designed for cold storage areas forty or so years ago. What most shops actually use are heaters over the door - the heat disappearing through the open door. Quite a few shops now just leave them turned off.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...