Kent Weald Western - Medway Water Body
Poor overall status
Get Kent Weald Western - Medway data
Attributes
- Water Body IDGB40602G502300
- Water Body TypeGroundwater Body
- Hydromorphological designationnot applicable
- NGRTQ4163237863
- Surface area504.93 km2
- Surveillance Water BodyNo
- Groundwater area50493.039 ha
Classifications
| Classification Item | 2019 |
|---|---|
| Overall Water Body | Poor |
| Quantitative | Good |
| Quantitative Status element | Good |
| Quantitative Dependent Surface Water Body Status | Good |
| Quantitative GWDTEs test | Good |
| Quantitative Saline Intrusion | Good |
| Quantitative Water Balance | Good |
| Chemical (GW) | Poor |
| Chemical Status element | Poor |
| Chemical Dependent Surface Water Body Status | Good |
| Chemical Drinking Water Protected Area | Poor |
| Chemical GWDTEs test | Good |
| Chemical Saline Intrusion | Good |
| General Chemical Test | Good |
| Supporting elements (Groundwater) | |
| Prevent and Limit Objective | Active |
| Trend Assessment | Upward trend |
Investigations into classification status
No data to show
Reasons for not achieving good (RNAG) and reasons for deterioration (RFD)
All reasons (RFDs and RNAGs) attributed to the classification elements in this water body.
| Reason Type | SWMI | Activity | Category | Classification Element | More information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RNAG | Unknown (pending investigation) | Unknown (pending investigation) | Sector under investigation | Trend Assessment | Details |
| RNAG | Diffuse source | Poor nutrient management | Agriculture and rural land management | Chemical Drinking Water Protected Area | Details |
| RNAG | Diffuse source | Poor pesticide management | Agriculture and rural land management | Chemical Drinking Water Protected Area | Details |
| RNAG | Diffuse source | Contaminated land | Industry | Chemical Drinking Water Protected Area | Details |
Reasons for not achieving good status by business sector
The issues preventing waters reaching good status and the sectors identified as contributing to them. The numbers in the table are individual counts of the reasons for not achieving good status with a confidence status of 'confirmed' and 'probable', where the latest classification is less than good status. There may be more than one reason in a single water body. Note, table does not include reasons for deterioration.
| Significant water management issue | Physical modifications | Pollution from waste water | Pollution from towns, cities and transport | Changes to the natural flow and level of water | Invasive non-native species | Pollution from rural areas | Pollution from abandoned mines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and rural land management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Industry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mining and quarrying | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Navigation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Urban and transport | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Water Industry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Local & central government | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Domestic general public | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Recreation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Waste treatment and disposal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No sector responsible | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sector under investigation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Objectives
| Classification Item | Status | Year | Reasons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Water Body | Good | 2050 | Disproportionately expensive: Disproportionate burdens; Natural conditions: Groundwater status recovery time |
| Quantitative | Good | 2021 | Disproportionately expensive: Disproportionate burdens |
| Quantitative Status element | Good | 2021 | Disproportionately expensive: Disproportionate burdens |
| Quantitative Dependent Surface Water Body Status | Good | 2015 | |
| Quantitative GWDTEs test | Good | 2015 | |
| Quantitative Saline Intrusion | Good | 2015 | |
| Quantitative Water Balance | Good | 2021 | Disproportionately expensive: Disproportionate burdens |
| Chemical (GW) | Good | 2050 | Natural conditions: Groundwater status recovery time |
| Chemical Status element | Good | 2050 | Natural conditions: Groundwater status recovery time |
| Chemical Dependent Surface Water Body Status | Good | 2015 | |
| Chemical Drinking Water Protected Area | Good | 2050 | Natural conditions: Groundwater status recovery time |
| Chemical GWDTEs test | Good | 2015 | |
| Chemical Saline Intrusion | Good | 2015 | |
| General Chemical Test | Good | 2015 |
Protected areas
| PA Name | Id | Directive | More information |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eden Brook East of Lingfield NVZ | S487 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Tonbridge Gravel 1 Raw Water | GWSGZ0232 | Safeguard Zone | |
| River Uck, Ridgewood stream confluence to Ford NVZ | S521 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Hexden Channel NVZ | S513 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Upper Beult NVZ | S495 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Tributary of Beult at Frittenden NVZ | S683 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Tudeley Brook NVZ | S490 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Hammer Stream NVZ | S496 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Kent Ditch NVZ | S505 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Limden NVZ | S506 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Newmill Channel downstream of A28 NVZ | S508 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Tidebrook NVZ | S507 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Grom NVZ | S497 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Ashdown Forest | UK0030080 | Special Area of Conservation | Natural England |
| Weir Wood Reservoir Eutrophic lake NVZ | EL133 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Medway at Weir Wood NVZ | S488 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Somerhill Stream NVZ | S806 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Teise NVZ | S491 | Nitrates Directive | |
| PEMBURY & MATFIELD | GWSGZ0124 | Safeguard Zone | |
| Barden Mill Stream NVZ | S489 | Nitrates Directive | |
| Hartlake | GWSGZ0111 | Safeguard Zone | |
| Kent Weald Western - Medway | UKGB40602G502300 | Drinking Water Protected Area |
Monitoring sites which have been used to classify this water body
Shows which sites were used for classification for which years within each cycle.