DEFRA’s land use consultation has sparked contrasting views on England’s agricultural future. As the government weighs responses from farmers, foresters, environmental groups and planners, tensions are emerging. Questions have arisen over whether land should prioritise food, nature, or multifunctional uses and whether guidance or enforceable rules should shape land decisions. In this insight, legal expert, Hannah Solel , Associate at leading multidisciplinary firm Hunters Law LLP (Hunters),explains what advisers to landowners need to know as the policy takes shape.
Understanding how land is used in England and how it might be used differently is the focus of a new policy. DEFRA is currently reviewing responses to a consultation on land use change. Why is this? Land is used in numerous different ways and increasingly in demand when it comes to meeting climate change targets and nature recovery goals. The government takes the view that a policy is needed to ensure land is used for the most appropriate reasons. Professionals advising landowners should be aware of how this policy is developing.
Background
DEFRA launched a land use consultation in January 2025, seeking feedback to 24 land use questions and five land use principles.
DEFRA’s focus is on agricultural land, given agricultural land constitutes roughly 67% of England’s total land area. DEFRA’s spectrum of ideas affecting agricultural land include: retaining the best-grade agricultural land for food; increasing how multifunctional land is (for example, farming alongside a renewable energy system, or growing both food and biofuel crops); making adjustments (such as actively monitoring soil health); introducing new environmental elements such as agroforestry; a greater shift towards environmental use; and 100% land use change from agricultural to environmental (wider-scale landscape schemes, habitat restoration and woodland creation are some examples).
Stakeholders interested in the formation of a land use policy submitted formal responses by the consultation deadline in April. Many have chosen to publish their responses, revealing mixed reactions to DEFRA’s proposals.
Who responded?
Respondees included the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) representing landowners and rural businesses; the National Farmers Union; Confor representing the forestry industry; National Parks England; the Office for Environmental Protection; the Royal Town Planning Institute; Rewilding Britain, renewable energy organisations such as Supergen Bioenergy Hub and Regen; Sustain (a food system change organisation); and the British Society of Soil Science.
What did they say?
The CLA concluded that the policy should not be used to mandate land use change: “Many decisions on land use come down to a judgement that balances a range of factors, whether formally through the planning system or within individual business. It is essential that landowner autonomy to make the right decisions for their business is respected in the way that the Land Use Framework and local delivery is deployed.” The CLA also drew attention to the nuances of competing interests: “Protecting agricultural land for future food security is important but it requires a flexible approach that considers climate change, farming systems and societal needs, rather than simple designation.” The CLA added that farmland, woodland and environmental land uses “should not be part of the planning system”.
Confor highlighted that DEFRA’s proposals overlook the significance of trees, failing to “fully acknowledge forestry’s crucial contribution not only to timber security, biodiversity, carbon capture, and rural economic growth but also as a multifunctional land-use option where food, timber, and nature can coexist.”
The NFU’s view is that a land use policy must focus on increased, sustainable food production. It supported the idea of “multi-functional land use” where land is used for generating different benefits but concluded that growing food must be the priority.
Sustain raised several concerns relating to the food production aspects of a new land use policy: “Nowhere do the [ land use ] principles mention healthier and more ecological consumption patterns – an omission given how diets shape land demand.” It also recommended a focus on food supply chains: “If retailers and food companies reward producers for delivering environmental outcomes (e.g. via premium prices or contracts that favour farms with regenerative practices), that complements government efforts. Government can convene dialogues with major buyers to promote such incentives. In sum, by providing expert guidance, integrating and simplifying incentives, easing rules, and championing the demonstrated benefits, the Government can empower many more land managers to implement multifunctional land uses.” Regarding the nature of the policy and whether it should serve as guidance or more akin to rules, Sustain noted that the “reluctance to completely avoid being ‘prescriptive’ is concerning. Some changes are essential to meet environmental goals. In high-tension areas where there are significant food, nature, and climate demands, more prescriptive measures may be needed”.
Competing interests
Reviewing this small selection of the consultation responses, it is clear that there are conflicting interests. The main tensions are between whether land should be prioritised for food production, or for more diverse land uses; whether the policy should be brought into the existing planning framework or not; and whether the policy should be used as a guide to inform decision-making, or have more legal weight. One response even suggested there should be a land use regulatory body.
What next?
The land use policy is expected to be published later in 2025. Time will tell if it addresses the tensions raised in the consultation phase and how the various stakeholders will react.
