51 12 06N 01 48 21W
Altitude 132 metres
Class 5, improper ground cover. Time series shows building works but is not a full explanation. Applying the WMO relocation rule,
“The primary objective of this classification is to document the presence of obstacles close to the measurement site. Therefore, natural relief of the landscape may not be taken into account, if far away (i.e., >1 km). A method to judge if the relief is representative of the surrounding area is the following: does a move of the station by 500 m change the class obtained? If the answer is no, the relief is a natural characteristic of the area and is not taken into account.”
“The indicated vegetation growth height represents the height of the vegetation maintained in a ‘routine’ manner. A distinction is made between structural vegetation height (per type of vegetation
present on the site) and height resulting from poor maintenance. Classification of the given site is therefore made on the assumption of regular maintenance (unless such maintenance is not practicable).”
I modify the latter to include negligence [update, hour or so later: that was sloppy wording on my part, I thought neglect but chose the wrong usage. For whatever reason the land seems to have no good vegetation and signs of human activity, has for some reason not had grass maintained around and near the Stevenson screen. 00:39 bst --Tim]
The former quoted is useful, this site is on Salisbury plain, a largely flat and grass covered area where relocation would lead to Class 1.
If proper ground cover was present, Class 2.
UHI, local army base buildings, distance, none.
Am I unfair? Discuss.