Is this agricultural or equestrian land?

Are you dealing with agricultural or equestrian land? That is a very common question on Planning Geek. The distinction matters because agricultural land can benefit from specific Part 6 permitted development rights, while an equestrian use normally sits outside the Use Classes Order and is generally treated as sui generis. Agriculture itself should not simply be described as a sui generis use.

Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 describes agriculture as:

includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), 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, and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly;

Therefore if your use is contained within the above legislation it ought to be classed as agricultural land for the benefit of Class A, Class B and Class C of Part 6 and indeed Barns to Residential for Class Q in Part 3 or Barns to flexible business use for Class R in Part 3.

Do you need an established farm business?

No. The planning question is whether the land or building is genuinely being used for agriculture, not whether the activity has already become a large or long-established commercial farming business.

A September 2026 appeal at Breckon Hill in Northumberland is a useful example. The Inspector accepted a retrospective agricultural storage shed where the evidence included livestock activity, sheep on the land, a tractor, livestock feed, fencing materials and equipment connected with the agricultural use. The Inspector also rejected the suggestion that the Green Belt exception required an established agricultural business or enterprise. Read the Northumberland agricultural shed appeal.

The contrast with appeal 6010165 at The Ferns, Brocton, Stafford is equally useful. Tractors and other equipment were used to maintain privately owned land, but the Inspector was not persuaded that the activity itself amounted to agriculture, horticulture, forestry or another use falling within the Green Belt exception.

The two decisions therefore point in the same direction: commercial status is not the test, but genuine agricultural activity still has to be demonstrated. Machinery and rural land are evidence only of what they are actually being used for.

Not agricultural? Maybe equestrian use?

But what if you have horses on the land?

Horses can be kept on land without taking it out of agriculture where the primary use is genuinely agricultural grazing. Horses bred or kept as livestock for agricultural purposes can also fall within the statutory definition of agriculture. The facts on the ground matter more than the label given to the activity.

There is no single activity that automatically changes agricultural grazing into an equestrian use. Riding, supplementary feeding, rugs, stabling, training facilities and the way the land is managed are all relevant, but the planning question is the primary use of the land as a matter of fact and degree. Simple grazing can remain agricultural even where the horses are kept for recreation. A livery yard, training establishment or other land-intensive horse enterprise is much more likely to amount to an equestrian use.

There may be an exception in the case of stables if these are genuinely incidental or ancillary to some other use. For example, the keeping of one or two horses on a residential property for purely domestic recreational purposes would almost certainly be within the C3 use.

If the land is in an equestrian use, the agricultural rights in Part 6 will not apply simply because horses are present. Other permitted development rights may still be available depending on the lawful planning unit and the development proposed.

If the primary use of agricultural land is changing to the keeping, riding, training or exercising of horses, a material change of use to equestrian use will normally require planning permission. If you are unsure where your land sits, contact us and we can look at the actual use and planning history with you.

Planning enforcement can become relevant where a material change of use to equestrian use has taken place without permission, or where agricultural buildings are being used for a materially different horse-related use. The authority still has to identify the actual breach on the facts; feeding, rugging or occasional riding are not a substitute for that planning judgement.

Note that there are limited permitted development rights for equestrian uses. Although one that is common to both agricultural and equestrian land is the erection of fences within Part 2 of the GPDO. For Part 2 Class A, the usual height limit is 1 metre where the gate, fence or wall is adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic, and 2 metres elsewhere. Other restrictions can still apply.

The distinction can now matter for another reason too. A lawful non-agricultural equestrian yard with permanent stables, hardstanding and other fixed infrastructure may have a different previously developed land (brownfield) position from an agricultural holding, because the NPPF expressly excludes land last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. That can be important when considering residential redevelopment outside a settlement under the August 2026 NPPF.

Other Agricultural Sections

Agricultural Or Equestrian Land Page Updated: 10th September 2026