Nantwich, Reaseheath Hall DCNN 7343 – Yet another appallingly bad site.

53.08624 -2.52604 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 5S Archived manual temperature records from unspecified location from 1/9/1988. Above location of unspecified origin with automatic readings from 30/9/2011.

The UK Met Office makes numerous claims regarding the premium quality of its sites that are blatantly untrue. Here, for example, is their online declaration of quality

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/weather-stations

So I shall consider these claims in relation to Nantwich.

Nantwich Reaseheath Hall weather station is located in an agricultural college. Although the Met Office shows an installation date of 1/1/1895 it was probably only as a rain gauge and there are no indications whatsoever of where it actually was – more on that later. Archived temperature readings from 1/9/1988 were taken manually – or rather not taken at all. The archive shows no fewer than 95 excuses for readings not being taken (often for several days at a time) in just 3 years. This led to the site being automated with readings from 30/9/2011. In view of the prior appalling recording I feel only those readings over the last 14 years have any potential of being reliable – if readings are only intermittent the likely accuracy of those that are taken is highly questionable.

Going back to those “strict criteria”, all Met Office sites are regularly inspected by directly employed and “qualified” Met Office staff. Do these staff not actually look at the surroundings? Simply stating a site meets CIMO class 5S is risible as there are NO CRITERIA to meet – taken directly from the CIMO guide:

Anywhere can meet that definition simply because it gives no requirements whatsoever. There are no qualifying criteria for Class 5 sites – a Stevenson screen by your back garden shed or even greenhouse will meet Class 5 as demonstrated at Copley.

The Nantwich site is surrounded by overgrown vegetation, is heavily shaded, meets no regulatory standards at all, is completely unrepresentative of anywhere but is frequently viewed by qualified staff who somehow consider the standard acceptable. And, of course, this site records the regional highest temperature with almost daily regularity.

When compiling these daily figures (that are also broadcast on X by the Met Office) does nobody at the Met Office stop and consider why this site appears as a regional high almost a hundred times a year? Is Nantwich really such a hot spot or is this almost derelict site heavily influenced by its unnatural surroundings? Is it even located over grass? A surprising number of official sites are not such as Pembrey Sands, Dawyk and others.

What of the site’s history? I can find nowhere in the records indicating site relocations but it most certainly has moved. Below is the 2010 image from Google Earth Pro in the days when it was manually (or not) reporting.

However. the previous 2005 imagery (and all prior ones) do not show a weather station. I have visually scoured the site but cannot find any indicators. Even going to the extreme lengths of viewing manual archives finds nothing to assist in identifying any site prior to 2010.

At least back then the site was free from overgrowth and likely quite a reasonable site – a pity it was not correctly maintained that way by its taxpayer funded custodians, both the college and the Met office.

In summary the Met Office is NOT remotely meeting the high exacting standards it claims. It operates literally hundreds of sites that are unacceptably poor whilst simultaneously pontificating about their superiority over other private weather sites. If Nantwich recorded a national record the Met Office would accept its validity – how bad is that?

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/02/26/nantwich-reaseheath-hall-dcnn-7343-yet-another-appallingly-bad-site/