Is it "agricultural"? What actually counts as a matter of law?
Farmers often say, “Don’t worry, it’s agricultural” when thinking about tenancies, tax or planning issues. But what do we mean when we say “agricultural”? In law, “agricultural use” has a specific, fairly consistent meaning across legislation. It is not as wide as some people might assume, and the distinction has real consequences for tenancies, tax reliefs, diversification strategies, and land use decisions.
Where the definition comes from
The modern legal definition has its roots in post-war statutes, notably the Agriculture Act 1947, which much of the later legislation refers to and carries forward, including the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, which specifically refers back to the 1947 Act, and the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, which uses broadly similar – but not identical - wording. Generally, the legislation defines agriculture to include dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock, the use of land as grazing land, use for growing consumable produce (which would typically encompass combinable crops, horticulture, fruit growing etc.) and market gardens and nursery grounds. The same essential wording later appeared in planning legislation.
Uses that usually fall within agriculture
In practice, uses closely and genuinely connected to farming the land will typically qualify. Grazing livestock, even at low intensity, sits comfortably within the definition, as does growing crops or grass for feed. Buildings and operations integral to the farming enterprise, such as lambing or calving sheds, livestock housing, and handling yards, are ordinarily regarded as agricultural. The same is true of storing hay, straw, feed, or farm machinery where that storage serves the holding’s agricultural operations.
The guiding thread is functional connection: the activity must be part and parcel of farming the land, rather than simply occurring in a rural setting.
Where assumptions go wrong
Difficulties tend to arise at the margins, where activities might appear basically rural but are not, in law, agricultural.
Storage is a common example. Storing your own grain or agricultural machinery used for farming the land in question in a farm building is typically (with, as ever, some caveats) agricultural. Storing caravans, boats, or building materials for third parties is generally not, even if the storage happens to be in a traditional farm barn that has “always been used for farm stuff”. The legal character follows the use, not the appearance or history of the structure.
Horses are another classic trap. Horses kept as livestock, for example, for breeding or grazing, may fall within agriculture. Horses kept for leisure, livery-related land use, or recreational riding usually do not, even though they may graze and present a pastoral picture. Courts have drawn and maintained this distinction.
Diversification can also shift the legal ground underfoot. A building used for agricultural purposes one year and commercial activities the next may, in law, cease to be in agricultural use. That change can have knock-on effects for tenancy rights, agricultural property relief, insurance, and compliance more broadly. Quiet, incremental changes can accumulate into a material change of use without a conscious decision to “stop being agricultural”.
Why the distinction matters
Whether land or buildings are in agricultural use can determine security of tenure under agricultural tenancy legislation and affect eligibility for agricultural property relief. It can influence the interpretation of existing agreements and licences, particularly where permitted use is limited to agriculture. It also bears on planning and change-of-use questions, including whether a material change has occurred, sometimes unintentionally, through gradual shifts in activity.
In short, treating a use as “agricultural” when it is not can undermine protections and reliefs you thought you had, and expose you to avoidable risk.
A practical sense-check
A simple test often helps. If challenged by a landlord, tenant, planning officer, valuer or anyone else, could you clearly and credibly link the activity back to farming the land as defined in legislation? If the justification relies on the building’s appearance, a rural backdrop, or long-standing custom – the age-old “we’ve always done it this way”, you may be outside true agricultural use in law. At that point, it is worth pausing to take advice, formalise the position, or regularise the use before small assumptions harden into larger problems.
Field Notes is Charles Russell Speechlys’ weekly agricultural law blog, sharing plain-English insight into the legal and policy issues affecting agriculture, agricultural land and rural business life. From hints and tips on avoiding agricultural disputes, pitfalls to keep an eye out when planning for tenancy or family agri-business succession, to the latest agricultural legislative or policy changes and the most interesting farm-related court decisions, Field Notes makes the complex more understandable, always grounded in the realities of life on (and off) the land.
Field Notes comes out every Wednesday. Previous editions of Field Notes include:
- Agricultural law review 2025/2026: Key cases and legislation in 2025 and what’s ahead in 2026
- Agricultural policy review 2025: Key changes and what to expect in 2026
- A farm legal resilience checklist: 10-Minute audit to protect your business in 2026
- Cobden v Cobden: the Court of Appeal revisits exceptional circumstances and “proprietary estoppel-ish” equity on dissolution of a farming partnership
- The Farming Profitability Review and the new Farming and Food Partnership Board: what’s new and what do you need to know?
