Is that therefore excluded under this reasonably tight definition, being "for the purpose only of supporting forestry activities"? I would like to think that it would not exclude situations where there is a dual use. Or, indeed, it may be that it's not necessarily the same house or dwelling but it may be in adjacent sharing quarters, for example, that just happen to be located on this block of land instead of across the fence. This sometimes may be the case in farming senses, where properties end up where they are most conveniently located, from time to time, and that may of course have preceded a particular land use that has evolved over time but, in the broader context of that area, the ongoing land use remains for agriculture purposes from some part of the property or one particular dwelling in a wider curtilage sense and not another.