Eastbourne – Perhaps the ultimate damnation of Met Office (lack of) standards.

Image from Google StreetView August 2024 looking directly in the direction of the Eastbourne Stevenson Screen from 13 metres/ 44 feet distance.

Tims Channon’s original review of Eastbourne was the longest and most detailed of all those he published. It pre-dated the relocation of the screen to its current site and was exceptionally critical of the appallingly bad site of the time. I also published a long report further damning its current location as one of the worst possible. It seems that the Met Office now belatedly concurs with both Tim and I. This new report makes a complete mockery of the Met Office’s claimed “high standards” which are so blatantly untrue as to be a parody of the reality. It has got so bad it is not even possible to see the Eastbourne Stevenson Screen as in the headline image.

The above is the headline statement the Met Office paraded online as part of this summer’s shock horror summer weather “presentations”. Seemingly to give credibility to their “usual high standard” they also highlighted those readings they had to “reject” – more akin to canned fish advertising.

Rejected figures

Figures are first reported as ‘provisional’ to enable this considered verification process to take place, often utilising further data not available at the time of original recording. If this process cannot affirm the expected levels of confidence during the analysis the figures are rejected.

Such is the rigour of this verification process, some sites have been discounted from providing new records on this occasion. A broken slat on the Stevenson Screen at Wiggonholt invalidated the readings from that site and remedial work is now underway.

The site at Eastbourne was also discounted as the grass was too long and nearby interference at the site didn’t meet usual high standard and so this data was excluded from the daily extremes.

In addition, the recent temperature figures reported from Cardiff Bute Park have also been rejected following a detailed review of the site, which found the station no longer meets the standards required for national temperature records.“

The most obvious point is that all these above excuses demonstrate a FAILURE on the part of the Met Office to manage the routine minimum requirements of their assets. More to the point though is that their statement regarding the unsatisfactory nature of the Eastbourne site is not correct. The Eastbourne site has been far below a minimum accpetable standard for years and the Met office has ceetainly been advised of that by the Talkshop.

In the headline image it is not possible to even see the Stevenson screen and bear in mind the Met Office rate this site as CIMO Class 4 NOT 5 https://talkshop.blog/2024/11/06/met-office-weather-stations-cimo-classification-list/ This 3 metre circled area below clearly shows the Class 4 rating is complete bunkum.

So was this site randomly chosen by someone not really competent to make such a decision? Well very possibly and considering who it was, the answer may well be – YES! .

“The UK’s sunniest town has moved its weather station to a new seafront location.

Eastbourne’s weather station has been relocated from opposite the Congress Theatre, where it stood for nearly 150 years, to a better, more open site away from the shade of buildings.

In line with a request from the Met Office, Eastbourne Borough Council last week moved it to a corner of the Western Lawns.

As it is one of the Met Office’s official Climate stations, the service provided a new Stevenson Screen – a white louvered box which protects the instruments from the elements yet allows air to circulate freely around the thermometers.

Councillor Margaret Bannister, Lead Cabinet Member for Tourism and Leisure Services, said: “We were happy to relocate the weather station to the seafront as suggested by the Met Office and are grateful for its investment in the new Stephenson Screen.

“As the sunniest place in the UK, weather is of particular interest to Eastbourne and its visitors and we are keen to continue playing our part in collecting data especially as people can now download Met Office weather apps for local areas to their mobile phones.”

Phil Johnson, the Met Office’s Regional Network Manager, added: “Weather Observation sites such as Eastbourne are crucial to the way that we observe and record the climate around the UK and we are delighted to support this site.

“These observations are used in a variety of different ways, including verifying automated observations, making historical records and contributing to climate change calculations and we rely on observers such as those at Eastbourne Borough Council to provide us with accurate data.”

“Although it is our aim to keep weather stations at their original location, circumstances can arise so that this is not always possible. In the case of Eastbourne the site is now surrounded by buildings which have an impact on readings, therefore we are pleased that we have an opportunity in conjunction with the Council to relocate the station to another local, more representative site.”

I would like to clatify at this point that the above is NOT a parody – it really is true.

Firstly I shall focus in the August 2024 headline image to use the “Cycling prohibited” signpost, blue bollard and the Cordyline australis, (commonly called the New Zealand cabbage tree) as markers.

Now this one below from March 2022

The stevenson screen at 1.25 metres above ground is the measured distance to the point of the temperature sensors. Allowing for the dimensions of the screen itself, the top is approximately 1.8 metres / 6 feet. It is clearly not above the hedge to the far side and barely visible from this nearside view.

Again using the cabbage trees as markers, below is the view from the far side looking back at that far hedge in September 2025.

This below is a view of the location chosen that dates to prior to instalation (2015) thus what it looked like to those who chose to locate it there.

There are numerous errors in the press report which, for brevity, I shall ignore. The important points are the decisions and comments by Met Office representatives.

Phil Johnson, the Met Office’s Regional Network Manager, added: “Weather Observation sites such as Eastbourne are crucial to the way that we observe and record the climate around the UK and we are delighted to support this site.

“Crucial”? In 2025 there were only 154 days of succesfully taken readings – 211 days of missing observations. This was quite a good year! A typical example:

Apart from the “NA” in colums I and J 1(maximum and minimum temperatures respectively) also check the date column with numerous missing dates i.e. no dates at all between 1st to 20th August. Worth noting that as at Mickleham (and others) this absence of readings does not stop the Met Office still quoting annual mean daily temperatures. All readings stopped on the 16th October 2025 – no doubt they restarted whenever anyone could be bothered in 2026…….”Crucial”?

These observations are used in a variety of different ways, including verifying automated observations, making historical records and contributing to climate change calculations and we rely on observers such as those at Eastbourne Borough Council to provide us with accurate data.”

The essential “climate change” reference just had to be included but commenting on reliance on observers provided by Eastbourne council was pure bathos. {Note that readings taken here are used as verifications of automated sites – worth remembering for later reviews in this series}.

“Although it is our aim to keep weather stations at their original location, circumstances can arise so that this is not always possible. In the case of Eastbourne the site is now surrounded by buildings which have an impact on readings, therefore we are pleased that we have an opportunity in conjunction with the Council to relocate the station to another local, more representative site.”

“ more representative site” – Representative of what exactly? Is a tiny triangle of overgrown hedging vastly too high and too close to the screen from the very first day representative of anywhere other than the few square metres it stands on?

This relocation was subsequent to the introduction of the CIMO guide. Even if ” Phil Johnson, the Met Office’s Regional Network Manager, ” was unaware of the CIMO guide (staggeringly improbable) he would have been definitely aware of the Met office Surface Stations User Guide.

By both these sets of standards this site option was CIMO Class 5 {“additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C“} meeting no regulatory standards at all. However it was also Met Office “Unsatisfactory” by their traditional yardsticks. Even to an amateur hobbyist this chosen location was absurd and did not get even remotely close to their guidance standards.

Quite how damning these guidance notes are is very telling. (my bold)

“Siting and Exposure

The issues of siting and exposure are concerned with ensuring that everyone is recording the same thing, the
same way, with the same limitations to allow intercomparison of data. Without some minimum standards of
site and exposure it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare one station’s data with another as it is specific in
nature to the station recording it and can only serve to show changes and variations there. Siting refers to the
physical characteristics of the recording location whilst exposure refers to the deployment of the instruments
in relation to the elements. When air temperatures are quoted, for example, these apply to measurements
taken in accordance with agreed standards of siting and exposure. Should a station which is operating with
instruments sited and exposed at variance with these standards attempt any direct comparison of data with
another, this is likely to be a difficult exercise. Values of air temperature, in common with most other
variables, show marked differences in value at different locations within even the same site, depending on the
height at which the observations are taken and their proximity to other objects. Standard siting and exposure
of instruments is therefore the bedrock of the entire observing process: neglect these matters and data become
much less useful to the wider community.“

This Eastbourne site, openly endorsed, by senior Met Office management was unacceptable from day 1.

Now coming to the excuses from that June 2026 report (after 10 years worth of known atrocious siting and absurd exposure)

“The site at Eastbourne was also discounted as the grass was too long and nearby interference at the site didn’t meet usual high standard and so this data was excluded from the daily extremes.“

So the observers never noticed the grass had not been cut (how frequent were their optional visits?) …..nor that the surrounding hedges were now over 3 metres high and had been so for a long while…….. nor that the screen was so close to the hedges that in winter mornings they probably needed a torch to read the sun shaded instruments. Presumably no annual Met Office site inspections ever took place to pass comment on this site that never, ever “meet usual high standard ” I do have to wonder what “nearby interference” is a euphemism for.

Clearly this site is junk, observations are highly occasional and likely to have been unreliable throughout its entire life. Not only should alleged records be expunged, its entire 20th Century data file should be deleted as grotesquely inappropriate. Sadly though this is actually quite typical of the unsatisfactory operating standards of the modern day Met Office…..but they themselves sanctioned it in the first place.

In light of these Met Office redactions I shall be offering further reviews of Wiggonholt and Cardiff Bute Park also having their readings expunged. In previous reviews both Tim and I have heavily criticised both sites…….a sting will come in the “tale”.

Codicil: For anyone wondering how the sunshine recorder operated here (I did!) , its not here, rather it is on the roof of the Council Offices in Groves Road. Eastbourne is also emphatically NOT the sunniest town in the UK. If anywhere has the claim to that title it is generally regarded as Shanklin on the Isle of Wight ( possibly disputed by Bognor Regis).

Source: https://talkshop.blog/2026/10/29/eastbourne-perhaps-the-ultimate-damnation-of-met-office-lack-of-standards/