Why agricultural use is not in the Use Classes Order

Agriculture is not in the Use Classes Order, and that single omission explains most of the confusion on farm holdings. Agricultural use is not in the Use Classes Order because the Order groups uses so that movement within a group escapes planning control, and agriculture was never meant to be grouped with anything. It is defined instead by statute, in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and it sits outside the Schedule altogether.

The practical effect is simple and unforgiving. Any change from agriculture to another use is a material change of use requiring planning permission, unless a permitted development right covers it. And any change back to agriculture is equally a change of use.

The statutory definition and where it sits

Section 336 defines agriculture 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 is ancillary to the farming of land.

Livestock is defined within that as any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land. Everything turns on that phrase. A flock of sheep is livestock. A riding horse is not, because it is kept for neither of those purposes, which is why equestrian use falls outside agriculture altogether.

Two more boundaries in the definition are worth knowing. Woodland is agricultural only where it is ancillary to farming, so commercial forestry stands on its own footing. And the definition is about the use of land, so a building used for an activity that is not farming is not agricultural merely because it stands on a farm.

Why agriculture needs no class

The Use Classes Order exists to save applications. Article 3(1) says that where land is used for a purpose in a class, using it for another purpose in the same class is not development. That is only useful where you want traffic between similar uses.

Agriculture has no similar uses to travel between. Farming to horticulture is already within the definition and so involves no change of use at all. Farming to anything else is a change the planning system wants to look at, because it usually involves buildings, traffic, drainage and the character of the countryside.

So agriculture behaves like a sui generis use for practical purposes, with no permitted internal flexibility and no permitted exit except through the specific rights Parliament has granted.

Changing from agriculture to something else

Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015 contains the exits, and they are narrow and heavily conditioned. The main ones:

• Agricultural building to dwellinghouses, with limits on the number of homes and the floorspace converted, and a requirement that the building was used solely for agriculture at a specified date or for a period before the application. The limits were increased in 2024, so read the current text. Our note on Class Q agricultural building to dwellinghouse covers the prior approval matters.
• Agricultural building to a flexible commercial use, again with a cumulative floorspace cap and a notification or prior approval requirement depending on the size.
• Agricultural building to a state-funded school or a registered nursery.

Each right is conditional. Each requires the building to have an agricultural planning history you can evidence. And each is withdrawn or restricted on designated land, in the curtilage of a listed building and where a condition has removed it.

Where no right applies, it is a full application, and the policy tests are the countryside tests: sustainable location, highways, visual effect on the countryside, heritage, ecology and the loss of agricultural land.

Diversification and how each activity is classified

This is where holdings get into trouble, because a diversified farm often ends up with several uses and no clear description of any of them.

Where the holding carries several of these, the description of development on any new application matters a great deal, and our note on describing a mixed use planning application sets out how to get it right. A description that says "agricultural building" when the building is used for contractor storage stores up a problem for the next transaction.

The threshold question for a farm shop is whether it sells mainly what the holding produces. Once the shelves are largely bought-in stock, it is a shop, and the shop threshold in the local community class is explained in our piece on Class F2 local community uses and the shop threshold.

Buildings erected under agricultural rights

Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Order grants rights for buildings and engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture on an agricultural unit, with a size threshold on the unit itself and limits on ground area, height, proximity to roads and dwellings. Larger buildings need the authority's prior approval of siting, design and external appearance.

Two consequences follow, and both are commonly missed.

The right is tied to the agricultural purpose at the time the building goes up. A barn erected under Part 6 and used from the outset for something else was never lawfully erected, and the fact that it looks like a barn does not cure that.

And a building erected under Part 6 carries conditions, including in some cases a restriction on using it for anything other than agriculture for a period after it is built. That restriction interacts directly with the conversion rights, so a new barn is not a conversion opportunity in the short term.

Reverting land to agricultural use

Because agriculture is a use like any other for these purposes, resuming it after a period of non-agricultural use is a material change of use. That surprises owners who assume the land has a natural resting state.

There are two escapes. Where the non-agricultural use was authorised by a planning permission granted for a limited period, section 57(2) of the 1990 Act allows the previous lawful use to be resumed on expiry. And where the land was used temporarily under the permitted development right for temporary uses, there is a right to resume the normal use.

Outside those, apply. A Planning Statement for a reversion is usually short, but it needs to establish the previous agricultural use with evidence rather than assertion.

Common misunderstandings on farm holdings

Four that come up in almost every enquiry.

That being a farmer gives a general freedom to build. It does not. The rights in Part 6 are specific, conditional and tied to agricultural necessity.

That the five hectare figure is a general threshold for farming activity. It is a threshold for a particular permitted development right, not a definition of a farm.

That an agricultural occupancy condition on a dwelling can be ignored once nobody farms. It cannot, and removing one needs an application supported by marketing evidence.

And that a building used for storage related to a contracting business is agricultural because the contractor works on farms. It is not, and this is the single most common enforcement issue on diversified holdings.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it, and treat a Lawful Development Certificate as the only formal confirmation that a use is lawful.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports a farm diversification proposal is likely to need.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.