farmland food-sovereignty land-use defra agriculture

England's Disappearing Farmland

England's farmland is vanishing: over 550,000 hectares lost in a decade. Discover why agricultural land is shrinking and what it means for Britain's food sec...

hostile.eco
13 min read

England’s Disappearing Farmland

England’s total agricultural area has been shrinking for decades. Between 1998 and 2007, cultivated land in the UK decreased by over 550,000 hectares. By 2021, enclosed farmland across the UK had fallen to approximately 12 million hectares, representing 50% of total UK land area, down from 54% in 1990. Most of these figures are UK-wide; England-specific breakdowns are not available on the same basis.

The UK now sources around 60% of food from domestic production. That ratio has held broadly stable in aggregate, but it masks what’s happening underneath: rough grazing land across the UK declined by almost 700,000 hectares (15%) between 1998 and 2014. Recent analysis shows 238,000 hectares of land in England changed use between 2019-20 and 2021-22, equivalent to 1.8% of England’s total land area in just three years.

The causes are multiple: housing, infrastructure, solar farms, rewilding, shifting agricultural economics. The outcome is singular. England has less productive farmland each year, at precisely the moment global food security risks are rising.

The parallel with energy is exact. Twenty years ago, Britain had the nuclear capacity to maintain energy independence. We let it run down without replacement. Today we import 40% of our energy at a cost of £24.3 billion annually. Farmland is following the same trajectory, and with the same lack of strategic intent.

What the Data Actually Shows

Understanding farmland loss in England means navigating multiple datasets with different methodologies and scope. Most long-run datasets cover the UK as a whole, while the policy questions are England-specific. The picture is complex. The direction is not.

Total agricultural area decline:

The ONS Natural Capital Accounts provide the longest consistent time series. Total enclosed farmland in the UK stood at approximately 12 million hectares in 2021, 50% of UK land area, down from 54% in 1990. In absolute terms, UK cultivated land decreased by over 550,000 hectares between 1998 and 2007. England contains the majority of UK cultivated land, but England-specific losses within this total are not separately reported in this dataset.

Recent land use change:

The most current England-specific data shows 238,000 hectares changed use between 2019-20 and 2021-22. Not all of this represents agricultural conversion, but 238,000 hectares in three years gives the scale of churn.

Agricultural land grading and development pressure:

England’s Agricultural Land Classification grades farmland from Grade 1 (excellent) to Grade 5 (very poor). Grades 1 and 2 together comprise approximately 21% of agricultural land in England, with Sub-Grade 3a adding a further proportion. These top grades constitute “Best and Most Versatile” (BMV) land.

Parliamentary evidence from CPRE (an anti-development campaigning charity) documents that 14,000 hectares of BMV land have been lost to planned development since 2010. Roughly 1,000 hectares per year of the highest quality farmland, converted to built environment.

The urban fringe squeeze:

CPRE’s latest research shows the farmed area of England’s urban fringe has fallen by 3% in the decade to 2021, even as England’s national farmed area increased slightly in official statistics. Over 80% of the urban fringe is agricultural land. This matters because flat, accessible land near cities tends to be both excellent for farming and irresistible to developers.

The best land and the most developable land are, inconveniently, the same land.

Solar Farms: Cheap Land, Expensive Choices

Solar energy deployment has accelerated as Britain pursues clean power targets. The land use implications are substantial and contested.

The energy crop footprint:

In England in 2024, 100,000 hectares of agricultural land were used to grow miscanthus, short rotation coppice, and maize for renewable energy. These are biomass and bioenergy crops, not solar panels, but they illustrate the scale of productive land already diverted from food to fuel.

For ground-mounted solar specifically, industry evidence to Parliament estimates that achieving government targets for a five-fold increase by 2035 would require solar farms to occupy around 0.8% of the UK’s total agricultural land.

Where the panels actually go:

CPRE found that 59% of England’s largest operational solar farms are located on productive farmland, with almost two-thirds built on Best and Most Versatile land. Government policy states that best agricultural land should be prioritised for food production. The planning system appears not to have noticed.

Industry submissions emphasise that “land used for solar farms is not lost to farming, and the multi-use of land is a key characteristic of solar developments”, with sheep grazing beneath panels cited as evidence. But “temporary” land use can mean 40 years. Two generations of farmers. And while sheep can graze beneath panels, arable cultivation cannot. Grade 1 land growing wheat becomes Grade 1 land growing grass, if anything.

The economics driving the conversion:

A Solar Energy UK factsheet states that “solar projects often offer a good diversification option for farmers”. Rental income from solar developers (typically £800-1,200 per hectare annually) exceeds what most arable farming generates, particularly with rising input costs and volatile crop prices.

Individually rational. Collectively dangerous. Farmland goes to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder is no longer growing food.

Rewilding: Deliberate Retreat

Rewilding and agri-environment schemes represent a different category entirely: deliberate removal of land from food production for ecological restoration.

Scale of environmental schemes:

In 2022, the total area of land in higher-level or targeted agri-environment agreements in the UK was 3.7 million hectares, including 2.3 million hectares in England alone.

Separately, the UK Food Security Report 2024 reports that the area of UK land in agri-environmental schemes reached 5.872 million hectares by 2023. The gap between JNCC’s 3.7 million and this larger figure likely reflects different definitions: JNCC counts higher-level and targeted agreements only, while the Food Security Report may include all scheme types including basic entry-level options. Different measurements, not contradictory ones.

These schemes range from hedgerow management and field margins (which maintain food production) to arable reversion and woodland creation (which end it).

Rewilding’s footprint:

Rewilding projects are smaller in scale but growing. Rewilding Britain reports that rewilding projects in England have increased jobs by more than 50%. No independent verification of this claim exists.

The concern is cumulative impact: rewilding plus solar plus housing plus infrastructure, each individually justifiable, collectively reducing agricultural capacity without anyone summing the total.

Concrete Over Topsoil

Farmland loss to built development is the most permanent form of conversion. Solar panels can be removed. Rewilded land can be ploughed. Concrete and tarmac don’t revert to agriculture.

Planning and farmland:

In the year ending June 2025, 159,600 decisions were made on applications for householder developments, accounting for 52% of all planning decisions. England’s planning system tracks decisions but not specifically how much farmland they consume.

The CPRE figure of 14,000 hectares of BMV land lost to development since 2010 represents irreversible conversion. At roughly 1,000 hectares per year, it might seem modest against England’s total agricultural area. But it’s cumulative, it’s permanent, and it’s concentrated on the best soils.

Academic research on urban expansion shows that improved agricultural intensification techniques and subsidies initially offset farmland loss through higher yields on remaining land. That offset is weakening. Yield increases are slowing while land loss continues.

England’s first Land Use Framework aims to manage these competing demands. Whether a framework without enforcement mechanisms will change anything is the obvious question. The historical record on such frameworks is not encouraging.

The 60% Figure and What It Hides

Government statistics state the UK “continues to source food from domestic production and trade at around an overall 60:40 ratio”. Sixty percent domestic, forty percent imported. This has remained broadly stable.

The aggregate stability conceals category-level dependencies. The UK is highly self-sufficient in liquid milk, eggs, and wheat, and heavily import-dependent for fruit, vegetables, and rice. The 60% figure also measures value, not calories or nutrition. And “domestic production” increasingly depends on imported inputs: fertilisers (largely imported), animal feed (soy from South America), fuel for farm machinery. Britain’s agricultural sector, like its energy sector, has import dependencies that headline statistics obscure.

A 2024 report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on food security, as reported by New Food Magazine, warned that UK food production could fall by almost a third within 25 years without urgent reforms. A separate analysis by the Global Warming Policy Foundation suggests maintaining current production will be challenging given continued loss of productive agricultural land.

Food import dependency carries the same strategic risks as energy import dependency. Global food prices are volatile. Climate shocks in producing regions create price spikes that hit import-dependent nations hardest. Currency fluctuations amplify costs. Supply chain disruptions, as COVID-19 demonstrated, arrive without warning.

In 1984, Britain was a net energy exporter. By 2024, we were importing 40% of our supply. The trajectory took twenty years. We didn’t notice until the bills arrived. Food security could follow the same path, on the same timescale, with the same combination of policy drift and institutional complacency.

Who’s Telling You What, and Why

Every organisation presenting farmland data has reasons to present it a particular way. Understanding those reasons is essential for reading the evidence clearly.

Government (Defra, ONS): Defra’s Agricultural Census and June Survey provide the most authoritative farmland statistics. The raw data is generally reliable. The policy framing serves whichever administration is in office. Incentive: present food security as adequate to avoid criticism; emphasise environmental scheme uptake to justify current policy.

CPRE: Exists to oppose rural development. Their farmland loss research is factual and well-sourced. Incentive: present farmland loss in the starkest terms possible. Their data on planning permissions and land classifications is useful; their policy positions reflect their anti-development mission.

Solar Energy UK: Industry body. Their submissions emphasise that “land used for solar farms is not lost to farming” and highlight sheep grazing under panels while not addressing crop production loss. Incentive: promote solar deployment, minimise perceived conflicts with agriculture.

Rewilding Britain: Advocacy charity. Presents land conversion as ecological restoration with economic benefits. Incentive: promote rewilding to sustain fundraising, downplay food production trade-offs.

NFU: Trade union for farmers. Supports solar leases when they benefit members financially. Incentive: maximise farm income, whether from food or from land rental.

The pattern is consistent across every source in this article: raw data and measurements are useful; conclusions and policy recommendations serve the organisation’s interests. We’ve used each accordingly.

Complexity and Counterarguments

The farmland debate is more nuanced than “preserve every hectare” versus “develop freely.” Several legitimate complications deserve honest treatment.

Productivity has risen faster than area has fallen.

Wheat yields in the UK have more than doubled since 1960. Modern farming produces far more food per hectare than historical agriculture. Losing 1% of farmland does not mean losing 1% of food production.

The problem: yield increases are slowing. The gains from fertilisers, pesticides, and mechanisation are largely banked. Further improvement depends on genetic modification (politically contested in the UK), precision agriculture (capital-intensive), or entirely new approaches. Climate change may reduce yields even with improved varieties. Relying on perpetual productivity growth to offset perpetual land loss is a bet, not a strategy.

Not all farmland feeds people.

Grade 5 land (very poor quality) produces minimal food. Converting marginal upland grazing to woodland may have negligible food security impact while delivering genuine environmental benefits. The issue is targeting. Solar developers and house builders want flat, accessible, well-drained land near infrastructure. So does productive agriculture. The 59% of large solar farms on productive farmland demonstrates which interest is winning.

Solar development is, in theory, reversible.

Unlike housing, panels can be removed and land returned to agriculture. Industry emphasises this point. But after 40 years under panels, will landowners choose farming or another solar lease? Will soil quality survive? A Carbon Brief analysis notes that evidence on long-term soil impacts remains limited. The assumption of reversibility hasn’t been tested at scale because the first wave of solar farms hasn’t reached end of life.

Housing need is genuine.

England has a housing crisis. Brownfield sites are finite. Some greenfield development is unavoidable. The question is whether BMV farmland should be the default, or the last resort. England has land for housing that isn’t Grade 1 soil. Choosing to build on the best agricultural land because it’s the cheapest to develop is an economic decision masquerading as an inevitability.

Environmental schemes deliver real public benefit.

Biodiversity, carbon sequestration, flood management, recreation. Intensive agriculture doesn’t provide these. The trade-off is explicit: less food production for more ecological function. Whether this serves the national interest depends on how one weighs food security against environmental restoration. Both matter. The question is whether anyone is keeping a running total.

Energy security requires renewable deployment.

Britain’s energy import bill justifies solar expansion. Refusing to build on farmland prolongs fossil fuel imports. True. But solar on agricultural land trades one form of import dependency for another. Rooftops, brownfield sites, and non-agricultural land exist as alternatives. They cost more and deploy more slowly. That’s a trade-off worth acknowledging rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.

What Would Actually Help

Addressing farmland loss requires deliberate choices rather than drift. Six measures that would change outcomes:

1. A Land Use Framework with enforcement.

The government’s Land Use Framework sets out principles. Principles without enforcement mechanisms are decoration. Planning decisions should require demonstrated consideration of Agricultural Land Classification. BMV farmland should receive statutory protection requiring exceptional justification for conversion. National land use accounting should track cumulative losses across all sectors.

2. Sequential testing for solar.

Government policy already states that best agricultural land should be prioritised for food production. Planning decisions should reflect this. Solar applications should demonstrate that brownfield sites, rooftops, and marginal land have been considered first. Grade 1-2 land should be excluded unless no alternatives exist. The modest premium for rooftop installation is worth paying to keep the best soils in production.

3. Honest accounting on energy crops.

England grows 100,000 hectares of crops for renewable energy. That’s land growing fuel instead of food, classified as renewable energy. The land use cost should be stated plainly, not buried inside statistics designed to make renewable targets look achievable.

4. Urban fringe protection.

The 3% decline in urban fringe farmed area over the decade to 2021 reflects creeping development on England’s most accessible agricultural land. Where green belt boundaries shift for housing, equivalent agricultural land elsewhere should receive statutory protection. The pattern where the most productive farmland disappears first, because it’s nearest to cities, will not reverse itself.

5. Cumulative food security assessment.

Every major land use change should require assessment of its cumulative impact on domestic food production. Not individual planning applications considered in isolation, but national accounting. If we lose X hectares to solar, Y to housing, Z to rewilding, what does the sum imply for import dependency? What are the strategic risks? This assessment does not currently exist. Individual decisions, each defensible in isolation, are collectively reducing agricultural capacity without anyone measuring the total.

6. Agricultural research investment.

If farmland area is declining, maintaining production requires yield increases on remaining land. Britain pioneered agricultural science at Rothamsted Research (experiments running since 1843). Investment in agricultural research has declined as a policy priority. Crop science, precision agriculture, soil health, sustainable intensification: these are the tools that could partially offset land loss. They require funding.

Land Is Finite. Policy Should Acknowledge This.

Farmland loss in England is documented, measurable, and ongoing. UK cultivated land decreased by over 550,000 hectares between 1998 and 2007. CPRE analysis records 14,000 hectares of Best and Most Versatile land lost to development since 2010. 238,000 hectares changed use between 2019-2022 in England alone.

Each conversion has its own logic. Solar developers lease farmland because the economics work. House builders target accessible land because the planning system lets them. Rewilding projects convert farmland because ecological restoration is a genuine public good. Each decision, taken alone, is defensible.

But nobody is summing the total.

Britain currently produces around 60% of domestic food consumption. Every hectare converted from food production reduces that capacity and increases reliance on imports. The choices may be justified. They are still choices, and they carry consequences that compound over decades.

The energy precedent is instructive. Britain had the generating capacity to maintain independence. We let it erode through a combination of institutional complacency and misplaced confidence that the market would sort it out. Now we spend £24.3 billion per year on energy imports and call it policy.

Farmland loss isn’t yet at crisis point. Domestic food production hasn’t collapsed. The 60:40 ratio holds. But the same was true of energy twenty years before the import bill arrived. The question is whether England’s approach to land use amounts to a strategy, or whether it amounts to a collection of individual decisions that nobody is adding up.

At present, nobody is adding up.

Data Sources & References

UK Government Agricultural Statistics

Land Use Change Data

Agricultural Land Classification

Food Security

Solar Farms and Farmland

CPRE Research

Environmental Land Use

Planning and Development

About This Analysis

This article is part of hostile.eco's evidence-based environmental advocacy. All claims are sourced, all data is cited, and all critiques are fair. If you find an error, please let us know.

Subscribe for Updates More Analysis

From the Sett

Weekly evidence on energy independence, wildlife siting, and what the data actually shows. No slogans. No spin. Just the source material.