Diversification can transform a farm’s future. Holiday lets, workshops, storage facilities, renewable energy projects, equestrian businesses and specialist livestock enterprises can all create valuable new income streams.
However, bringing new activities into the countryside can also create friction. Noise, dust, odour, lighting, traffic and visual disturbance may affect neighbouring land or a new enterprise may itself be unusually sensitive to ordinary rural activity.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Thomas v Nicholas [2026] EWCA Civ 847 highlights how the law approaches these competing interests.
Falcons, scaffolding and a neighbour dispute
The claimants at the centre of the case bred falcons. The falcon breeders alleged that noise and visual disturbance caused by their neighbours carrying on scaffolding-related activities nearby distressed their birds and caused deaths.
They pursued claims in private nuisance and negligence. Although these claims can arise from the same events, they address different questions.
Private nuisance asks whether someone’s use of land unreasonably interferes with a neighbour’s ordinary use or enjoyment of land.
Meanwhile, negligence asks whether someone failed to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm.
The distinction between the two claims was critical to the case and should be observed by any farmers who also have plans for diversification.
Why did the private nuisance claim fail?
The Court of Appeal decided that the falcon-breeding operation was unusually sensitive to noise and visual disturbance. The neighbouring activity would not have caused substantial interference with an ordinary use of the land and therefore the nuisance claim failed.
This reflects a longstanding principle illustrated by Robinson v Kilvert (1889). In this previous case, it was established that private nuisance does not generally protect an exceptionally sensitive activity where an ordinary use would have remained unaffected.
When it comes to diversification, understanding that principle essential. A specialist enterprise, whether breeding sensitive animals, growing delicate crops or operating luxury holiday accommodation, cannot automatically require neighbouring occupiers to meet standards beyond those reasonably expected in the area.
The location of the enterprise also matters when determining what is appropriate. As the Supreme Court explained in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, whether an activity is unreasonable depends partly upon the character of the locality. Tractor movements, animal noise and early-morning operations may be expected in a working agricultural area, although the scale, timing and intensity of an activity remain relevant.
For further information in relation to the relevant law for private nuisance, please see my previous article.
Why did the negligence claim succeed?
Despite rejecting the nuisance claim, the Court of Appeal found liability in negligence. The scaffolding operator knew about the particular danger to the falcons and could have taken reasonable precautions, including parking equipment elsewhere.
As such, the ruling demonstrates a practical message that can influence future diversification plans. Even if an activity does not amount to private nuisance, liability may arise where its operator:
- Knows about a specific risk of serious harm
- Can reasonably foresee that harm
- Fails to take straightforward and proportionate precautions
Once a neighbour raises a credible concern, ignoring it can increase legal risk.
Other important principles for diversified farms
Being established first does not provide complete protection. “Coming to the nuisance” is not ordinarily a defence and a new neighbour may still complain about an existing activity.
Planning permission is not a complete answer either. Permission may authorise development, but it does not generally authorise interference with neighbouring land. Compliance with environmental permits or planning conditions may be relevant evidence without automatically defeating a civil claim.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4 also confirms that nuisance is not limited to noise, smells or physical damage. Serious visual intrusion can qualify where it substantially interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of land.
Practical steps before diversifying
Farmers and landowners should:
- Assess the potential nuisance
- Identify unusually sensitive neighbouring activities
- Discuss potential problems before work begins
- Document complaints and the response to them
- Consider alternative routes, locations and operating hours
- Review planning, tenancy and restrictive covenant requirements
The central lesson from Thomas v Nicholas is straightforward and demonstrates that diversification requires more than commercial planning. Understanding neighbouring land uses and responding reasonably to known risks can prevent a promising new venture from becoming an expensive dispute.
Our specialist team can support you with compliance awareness so that you do not get caught out. Contact Natalie Dean today for help.