What Counts as “Agriculture” in Town Planning

Under planning law, the use of land for agriculture and forestry is generally not classed as “development” at all. That means many agricultural uses don’t require planning permission in the first place.

This exemption is powerful—but it isn’t unlimited.

The key question is always:

Is what’s happening on the land genuinely agricultural in planning terms?

If the answer is yes, planning permission may not be required. If the answer is no, then the normal planning rules apply—even if the land has always been called “farmland”.

What Planning Law Actually Means by “Agriculture”

Planning law has its own definition of agriculture, set out in statute. It includes things like:

• Growing crops

• Horticulture

• Fruit growing

• Seed growing

• Dairy farming

• The breeding and keeping of livestock

• Grazing land

So far, so familiar.

But two points often surprise people:

1. Agriculture Is About the Activity, Not the Label

It doesn’t matter what the land is called on the title deeds, or how it’s described in an estate agent’s particulars. Planning looks at what is actually happening on the ground.

2. It Doesn’t Have to Be a Big Business

Agriculture doesn’t have to be a large commercial operation. The law doesn’t require it to be profitable—or even particularly efficient. What matters is the nature of the activity, not its scale or success.

That said, not everything that happens in the countryside qualifies.

The Horse Problem: Why Horses Aren’t “Agriculture”

One of the most common planning misconceptions involves horses.

Many people assume that because horses graze grass, keeping them must be agricultural. In planning law, that is not the case.

Only genuine working horses, which fall within a tight definition, might count as agriculture.

The courts have been clear:
The breeding and keeping of horses is not agriculture.

Why? Because horses are not classed as livestock for agricultural purposes. Equestrian activities are treated as leisure or recreation, not farming.

Simply grazing horses in a field generally falls under accepted agricultural use and does not require planning permission.

However, any facilities or structures for keeping, sheltering or breeding horses are likely to mandate approval.

Keeping horses involves more than just grazing - it often incorporates stables, shelters, yards, breeding and training facilities. These bring potential changes in use that require planning consent.

This catches people out time and again.

When Farmland Becomes Something Else

Another major grey area is diversification—particularly farm shops, food processing, and sales.

Farm Shops: When Are They Still Agricultural?

A farm shop can be incidental to agriculture, especially where it sells produce grown on the farm itself.

But there’s a tipping point.

Once a significant proportion of goods are imported from elsewhere, the use is likely to become a separate retail use in planning terms.

There’s no fixed percentage. Planners look at this as a matter of fact and degree, considering:

• Where the goods come from

• How much is produced on site

• The scale of the operation

• How it presents to customers

A small shop selling mostly your own produce may still be agricultural in character. A large retail operation selling mostly bought-in goods probably isn’t.

Food Processing: What’s Allowed?

Processing your own produce can sometimes still fall within agriculture.

For example:

• Making cider from apples grown on the farm

• Producing juice or wine from your own crops

Courts have accepted that these activities can be ordinarily incidental to farming.

But there are limits.

Agriculture is about production, not buying and selling. Once you start:

• Importing produce to process

• Operating at an industrial scale

• Running a business that looks more like manufacturing or retail

…you are likely to step outside agriculture and into a separate planning use.

Leisure Plots, Storage, and Other Non-Agricultural Uses

Some activities are clearly not agricultural, even if they take place on farmland.

Examples include:

• Leisure plots

• Commercial storage unrelated to farming

• Lairage or storage of grain reserves not connected to on-site production

The test is always whether the activity is part of the productive processes of agriculture. If it isn’t, the exemption is unlikely to apply.

Agricultural Buildings and Permitted Development Rights

So far, we’ve been talking about use. Buildings are a separate issue.

Many agricultural buildings and works benefit from permitted development (PD) rights, meaning they can be built without a full planning application, subject to conditions and limitations.

But this is where things get confusing.

PD Rights Are Narrower Than “Agriculture”

The legal definition of agriculture is broad. PD rights are more restrictive.

For example:

• PD buildings must be “reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture”

• PD rights usually apply only where agriculture is operating as a trade or business

• There are size limits, location restrictions, and prior approval requirements

This leads to an important point.

Failing PD Does Not Mean Failing Planning

A development might:

• Not qualify as permitted development

• Still be acceptable in planning terms

These are two different tests.

A building might not be “reasonably necessary” to qualify for PD, but still be clearly related to a genuine agricultural use and capable of being justified through a planning application.

If a planning application is submitted, proposals would still need to comply with the planning policies in the adopted local plan.

Problems arise when people mix these tests together—especially in appeals or objections.

Common Traps People Fall Into

Over the years, certain misunderstandings come up again and again:

• “It’s on farmland, so it must be agricultural”

• “Horses count as farming”

• “Farm shops don’t need planning permission”

• “If it’s not permitted development, it must be refused”

• “Calling it agriculture makes it agriculture”

Unfortunately, none of these are true.

Planning law looks past labels and assumptions. It focuses on what is actually happening, how it functions, and what its real impacts are.

Why This All Matters

Getting the agricultural definition wrong can have real consequences:

• Enforcement action requiring uses to stop

• Retrospective planning applications to regularise developments

• Problems when selling land or property

Often, issues arise not from bad intentions, but from misunderstanding where the planning boundaries lie.

A Final Thought on Agriculture within the Planning System

Agriculture enjoys a privileged position in planning law—but it isn’t a free-for-all.

The countryside is full of activities that feel agricultural, look rural, and may even be historically linked to farming. But planning law asks a more precise question:

Is this genuinely part of the productive processes of agriculture?

If the answer is yes, the planning system may take a light-touch approach. If not, normal planning controls apply—regardless of how long the land has been farmed.

When in doubt, early advice can save a great deal of trouble later on.

About me

Andrew Ransome is the planning director at ADP and is a chartered member of the RTPI, with over 22 years of town planning experience.

Andrew has extensive experience offering strategic planning solutions to challenging projects in both rural and urban settings. Follow him on Linkedin.

Get in touch