Not everything that looks rural is “agricultural” in law.
The legal definition of agricultural use is narrower than many farmers assume, and it has real consequences for tenancies, tax reliefs, diversification and planning. True agricultural use must be functionally connected to farming the land — activities like grazing livestock, growing crops, and storing feed or machinery used on the holding. Problems arise where uses drift into commercial or recreational territory, such as caravan storage, livery, or non‑farming enterprises. Misunderstanding the definition can weaken tenancy protections, affect APR eligibility, and trigger unintended planning issues. A simple rule of thumb: if you can’t clearly link the activity back to farming the land as defined in legislation, it may not be agricultural.
“Don’t worry, it’s agricultural” — but is it really?
It’s a familiar phrase in farming. When questions arise about tenancies, tax, planning or diversification, someone will often say, “Don’t worry, it’s agricultural.” But in law, “agricultural use” has a specific meaning — and it’s narrower than many people assume.
That distinction isn’t academic. It affects tenancy rights, tax reliefs, diversification strategies, planning decisions and the long‑term security of your business.
Where the legal definition comes from
The modern definition of agriculture stems from post‑war legislation, particularly the Agriculture Act 1947. Later laws — including the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 — largely carry forward the same wording.
Across these statutes, agriculture typically includes:
- dairy farming
- breeding and keeping livestock
- using land as grazing land
- growing crops or other consumable produce
- horticulture, fruit growing and market gardening
- nursery grounds
Planning legislation later adopted similar language, meaning the definition is broadly consistent across different areas of law.
Activities that usually qualify as agricultural
In practice, activities that are genuinely and functionally part of farming the land tend to fall within the definition. Examples include:
- grazing livestock, even at low intensity
- growing crops or grass for feed
- lambing or calving sheds
- livestock housing and handling yards
- storing hay, straw, feed or machinery used for the holding’s agricultural operations
The key test is functional connection: the activity must be part of farming the land, not simply something that happens to take place in a rural setting.
Where assumptions often go wrong
Problems arise at the edges — where something looks rural but isn’t agricultural in law.
1. Storage that isn’t agricultural
Storing your own grain or machinery used on the holding is usually agricultural. But storing caravans, boats, building materials or other people’s property is not, even if it’s in a traditional farm barn that has “always been used for farm stuff”.
The legal character follows the use, not the building’s appearance or history.
2. Horses — the classic grey area
Horses kept as livestock (for breeding or grazing) may fall within agriculture. Horses kept for livery, leisure or recreational riding generally do not, even though they graze and create a pastoral scene. Courts have consistently upheld this distinction.
3. Diversification changing the legal use
A building used for agriculture one year and commercial activity the next may legally cease to be agricultural. That shift can affect:
- tenancy rights
- agricultural property relief (APR)
- insurance
- planning compliance
Small, incremental changes can add up to a material change of use — sometimes without anyone consciously deciding to “stop being agricultural”.
Why the distinction matters
Whether land or buildings are in agricultural use can influence:
- security of tenure under agricultural tenancy legislation
- eligibility for APR
- the interpretation of tenancy agreements and licences
- whether a material change of use has occurred for planning purposes
Misclassifying a use as agricultural can undermine protections you thought you had and expose you to avoidable risk.
A simple sense‑check
A practical test is this:
If challenged by a landlord, tenant, planning officer or valuer, could you clearly link the activity back to farming the land as defined in legislation?
If your justification relies on:
- the building’s appearance
- the rural setting
- long‑standing custom (“we’ve always done it this way”)
…then you may be outside true agricultural use in law.
At that point, it’s worth pausing to take advice and, if necessary, formalise or regularise the position before small assumptions turn into bigger problems.
FAQs: Agricultural Use Explained
What does “agricultural use” legally mean?
In UK legislation, agricultural use covers activities directly involved in farming the land — such as livestock breeding, grazing, dairy farming, growing crops, horticulture, fruit production, and nursery grounds. The definition is consistent across key statutes and planning law.
Does grazing always count as agricultural?
Grazing livestock for farming purposes usually qualifies. However, grazing associated with leisure horses or livery businesses generally does not, even though the land may look the same.
Is storing equipment or materials considered agricultural?
Storing your own grain, feed or machinery used for farming the holding is typically agricultural. Storing caravans, boats, building materials or third‑party items is not, even if the building is a traditional farm barn.
Do horses count as agricultural livestock?
Only when they are kept for breeding or as working livestock. Horses kept for leisure, riding schools, trekking or livery fall outside the agricultural definition.
Can diversification change the legal use of a building?
Yes. If a building moves from agricultural to commercial use — even gradually — it may legally cease to be agricultural. This can affect tenancy rights, APR, insurance and planning compliance.
Why does the definition matter for tax and tenancies?
Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and agricultural tenancy protections rely on the land or buildings being in genuine agricultural use. Misclassification can lead to loss of reliefs or weakened security of tenure.
How can I check if an activity is truly agricultural?
Ask whether you can clearly link the activity back to farming the land as defined in legislation. If the justification relies on the building’s appearance, rural setting or long‑standing custom, it may not be agricultural in law.
What should I do if I’m unsure?
Seek advice early. Small, informal changes can accumulate into a material change of use, so it’s better to clarify the position before issues arise with landlords, HMRC or planning authorities.
Call to Action
If you’re unsure whether a building, activity or diversification plan still counts as “agricultural” in the eyes of the law, it’s worth getting clarity before assumptions turn into problems. At Farm & Country Finance, we work with farmers and rural businesses every day who are navigating these exact questions — from tenancy implications to APR eligibility and the knock‑on effects for borrowing or restructuring.
If you’d like a second opinion, a sense‑check, or guidance on how a change of use might affect your finance options, we’re here to help by pointing you in the right direction to get the right advice. A quick conversation now can save a great deal of cost and complication later.
Get in touch and let’s make sure your plans — and your protections — stay on solid ground.