'Audacious' holiday lets in ancient woodland discussed at planning inquiry
A collection of unauthorised holiday-let buildings built on a sensitive green belt site nearly six years ago are immune to enforcement – it has been claimed.
This week a four-day planning inquiry was held at the Midland Hotel in Bradford to decide the future of the Jacob’s Wood site in Silsden.
Bradford Council was first made aware new structures were being installed on the woodland site in 2025.
An enforcement notice calling for work on the site to halt, and for buildings and concrete pads and access roads to be removed was issued earlier this year.
The notice also required the site’s owners to plant 300 trees on the site to repair the irreplaceable woodland.
The site was already home to a number of existing farm buildings that have been converted into holiday lets.
The notice was issued to company called AZARA GIDA SAN.VE TIC.LTD.ŞTI.
That company then appealed the notice – leading to this week’s inquiry in front of planning inspector Paul Hocking.
The appellants claimed they were an “innocent party” and had bought the land after the work had already been done.
During the lengthy inquiry Mr Henderson, representing the company, argued the work to install new holiday lets on the site was carried out by the previous owners in and around 2020.
This would mean the council was out of time to issue the enforcement notice, as planning rules at the time stated a notice has to be issued within four years of the works being substantially completed.
But Bradford Council questioned claims the buildings had been on the site that long ago, and argued that work to develop the site seemed to be ongoing when officers visited in 2025.
In his opening, Howard Leithhead, representing Bradford Council, said the unauthorised development “would be audacious in any location.”
He added: “That it was carried out in an area with so many designations is extraordinary.
“The site is located in an area of green belt. More broadly Jacobs Wood is a designated local wildlife site and an ancient woodland and is within the zone of influence of the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area.”
The appellants had argued a number of grounds to have the enforcement notice thrown out. One of these grounds was that the application would have likely been approved if planning permission had been applied for.
But the appellant withdrew this ground ahead of the appeal.
Mr Leithhead said: “It is difficult to see how the appellant could ever have thought it could obtain planning permission for the development.”
He argued the works were nowhere near complete when the council became aware of the development in 2025.
The inspector was told a sales brochure for the site compiled by Carter Jonas in 2024 made no mention of the development – despite the company claiming the buildings had already been in site for several years.
Mr Henderson discussed a key piece of evidence – invoices from O’Neill Construction dating back to 2020 and showing “holiday pods” were delivered to part of the site.
Neither Mr O’Neill nor anyone else from O’Neill Construction was present at the inquiry to answer questions on the invoice.
Daniel Speedy, an enforcement officer at the council, told the inquiry the council was first alerted to the development in early 2025. He visited the site that September, and said work to the building appeared to be ongoing, as the buildings were not habitable.
He could see construction materials and tools present during his visit, and argued the work seemed to have been carried out recently.
Mr Henderson put to the inquiry the buildings were being refurbished by the new owners/appellants – as they had fallen into disrepair in the years since their installation in 2020.
He dismissed the suggestion by Mr Speedy that the units seen in 2025 were different than the units the invoice claims were delivered to the site in 2020.
Referring to the Carter Jonas leaflet advertising the site for sale, and the fact that it did not mention the new holiday lets, Mr Henderson argued it would be unlikely that an estate agent would openly advertise buildings that had been installed without planning permission.
Mr Leithead said: “The brochure refers to Moss Bank (a timber round house on the site that operates as a holiday let and is not included in the enforcement notice). Does that have planning permission?”
Mr Henderson replied: “No.”
Once the inquiry has concluded, Mr Hocking will consider the evidence and make a decision on the appeal in the coming weeks.