Can Agricultural and Forestry Buildings Be Built in the Green Belt?
Discover the rules for replacing buildings in the Green Belt, including size limits, same use requirements, key court decisions, and common planning pitfalls.
GREEN BELT
Andrew Ransome
6/23/20265 min read
The short answer is that buildings genuinely for agriculture or forestry are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
This is one of the most permissive exceptions in the entire paragraph 154 framework, and it is deliberately so: the Green Belt has always been understood as compatible with productive agricultural and forestry use.
The key question in every case is simply whether the building is genuinely for agriculture or forestry.
This article explains the policy exception, how it operates in practice, its relationship with permitted development rights, and the important distinction between agricultural buildings.
Green Belt Policy: Paragraph 154(a)
Paragraph 154(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides that buildings for agriculture and forestry are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. That is the full extent of the policy test.
Unlike most other exceptions in paragraph 154, it carries no size limit, no proportionality threshold, and no requirement to assess the effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
If the proposed building is genuinely for agriculture or forestry, it is not inappropriate — regardless of its scale, footprint or bulk.
This broad permissiveness reflects the longstanding policy position that agriculture and forestry are the most traditional and compatible land uses in the Green Belt.
The physical infrastructure needed to support them — livestock buildings, grain stores, machinery sheds, timber storage buildings — is simply a necessary part of productive rural land management.
A large agricultural building is treated differently from a large residential or commercial building, not because of any difference in its physical impact on openness, but because of its purpose and its fundamental compatibility with the character and function of Green Belt land.
The High Court in Europa Oil and Gas Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] confirmed a principle of wider importance to the paragraph 154 framework: the impact of a development on openness is not necessarily related to its size, but also to its purpose.
What Does 'For Agriculture or Forestry' Mean?
The NPPF does not define agriculture or forestry for these purposes.
The most relevant definition for planning purposes is that in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which defines agriculture broadly to include horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock, the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes.
In practice, the purpose of a proposed building will usually be apparent from the application description, the accompanying agricultural appraisal or agent's statement, and the existing use of the land.
Decision-makers are to determine applications as submitted, unless the evidence firmly indicates that the proposed building would not genuinely be for agriculture or forestry.
Planning Permission vs Permitted Development Rights
Many agricultural buildings do not require a planning application at all.
Class A and Class B of Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) grant permitted development rights for certain agricultural buildings and works on agricultural units of 5 hectares or more (Class A) or between 0.5 and 5 hectares (Class B), subject to size limits, prior approval requirements and exclusion categories.
The permitted development test — whether a building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the agricultural unit — is a stricter test than the planning application route.
It applies only to the exercise of PD rights.
When an applicant makes a full planning application for an agricultural building in the Green Belt, the paragraph 154(a) exception applies, and no equivalent 'reasonably necessary' test exists.
This is an important distinction: a building that might not satisfy the PD test (because, for example, it exceeds the size thresholds or the agricultural unit is too small to trigger Class A rights) may nonetheless be entirely acceptable under paragraph 154(a) if a full planning application is made.
Applicants considering agricultural buildings in the Green Belt should always check whether the PD route is available before investing in a full planning application.
Where PD rights are available and the proposed building falls within the permitted parameters, the prior approval route may be simpler, cheaper and faster.
Where PD rights are not available — for example, because the unit is below the minimum size threshold, or the building exceeds the Class A or B dimensional limits — a full application under paragraph 154(a) remains available.
Prior Approval and the Green Belt
Where a planning application is required rather than prior approval, the assessment is straightforward under paragraph 154(a) — the building is not inappropriate provided it is for agriculture or forestry.
However, where prior approval is sought under Part 6 of the GPDO, the prior approval assessment is limited to specific matters:
the siting, design and external appearance of the building; the impact on the amenity of any adjoining properties; and any other matters specified in the relevant Class.
Green Belt policy does not form part of the prior approval assessment for Part 6 agricultural buildings.
This is because PD rights operate by granting planning permission automatically, and the conditions attached to those rights define the scope of the assessment.
Rural Workers' Dwellings: A Separate Question
A dwelling for an agricultural or forestry worker is not a building for agriculture or forestry within the meaning of paragraph 154(a), even where it is essential to support the agricultural operation.
Its primary use is residential, not agricultural.
This distinction has been consistently upheld in appeal decisions.
Unless a rural worker's dwelling falls within another exception in paragraph 154 — it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Planning permission can only be granted if the applicant demonstrates very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.
The primary other consideration typically advanced in support of a rural worker's dwelling is the essential need for the worker to be on or immediately adjacent to the agricultural unit.
The need must be genuine and current: a speculative or anticipated future need, or a need that could be met by accommodation elsewhere in the vicinity, will not usually constitute very special circumstances.
Conditions Commonly Attached to Agricultural Building Permissions
Where planning permission is granted for an agricultural building under paragraph 154(a), local planning authorities frequently seek to attach conditions to control the future use of the building.
Common conditions include:
A restriction limiting the use of the building to agriculture or forestry, preventing subsequent conversion to residential or commercial use without a further planning application.
A requirement for the building to be removed and the land restored to its former condition if the agricultural use ceases, particularly for more marginal or temporary agricultural uses.
Controls on materials and external appearance to ensure the building reads as an agricultural structure and does not visually dominate the landscape.
Limitations on external lighting, surfacing and associated infrastructure to minimise the impact on the rural character of the site.
These conditions are generally regarded as reasonable and necessary in the Green Belt context.
Agricultural and Forestry Buildings in the Green Belt: Summary
Buildings for agriculture and forestry are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt under paragraph 154(a) of the December 2024 NPPF, regardless of their size.
The test is purpose alone: is the building genuinely for agriculture or forestry?
No openness test, no proportionality threshold and no size limit applies.
The planning application route under paragraph 154(a) is available independently of the permitted development route under Part 6 of the GPDO.
Rural workers' dwellings are not buildings for agriculture or forestry and are inappropriate development requiring very special circumstances.
Planning Application Advice
If you own land or a building in the Green Belt and want to understand your development options, I can advise on planning strategy and manage your application from initial assessment through to decision. Contact me to discuss your site.
Andrew Ransome MRTPI - Email: andrew@andrewransome.co.uk
About me
Andrew Ransome is a Planning Director and a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), with more than two decades of experience in town planning.
He specialises in delivering strategic planning solutions for complex developments across both rural and urban environments, helping clients navigate planning challenges and unlock development opportunities. Connect with Andrew on Linkedin.
Green Belt Information
Green Belt Approvals
Get in touch for planning advice: Email: andrew@andrewransome.co.uk
© 2026. All rights reserved.