The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has criticised York Council after upholding a complaint from a resident who was given incorrect planning advice about a neighbour’s garden office.
What the ombudsman found
The dispute began when a resident asked the council in 2024 whether a structure being built in a neighbour’s garden needed planning permission to be used as a home office. Council officers advised the complainant that the building fell within permitted development rights.
The ombudsman’s review found the office was in fact built 10cm higher than the permitted development height limit. Despite this, the neighbour proceeded without applying for planning permission and the council subsequently decided not to take enforcement action, citing the building’s location and impact.
"The sheer number of people contacting them showed people felt they were not getting the help they were entitled to from councils."
The watchdog upheld the complaint and instructed the council to apologise to the resident for the incorrect advice.
Scale of complaints locally and nationally
The case was one of eight complaints upheld against York Council by the LGSCO in 2025/26 out of nine investigations made into the authority. Nationally, the ombudsman recorded a sharp rise in its caseload: it handled 27,625 complaints during the year, a 33% increase on the previous year — the steepest rise reported in a decade.
- York: 9 complaints investigated by the ombudsman in 2025/26; 8 upheld
- Nationally: 27,625 complaints handled by the LGSCO, up 33% year-on-year
- Complaints covered services including housing, adult social care and SEND
| Area | Investigated | Upheld / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| City of York Council | 9 | 8 upheld; included incorrect planning advice on garden office |
| England (LGSCO total) | 27,625 complaints | 33% increase year-on-year |
Council response and implications
A council spokesperson said officials took complaints seriously and would learn from feedback to improve services for residents. The ombudsman’s findings raise questions about the clarity and accuracy of planning advice provided to the public — and about how enforcement decisions are reached when errors have occurred.
For residents, the case highlights the importance of confirming planning advice in writing and, where there is doubt about compliance, seeking a formal decision from the planning authority or using the planning application/enforcement processes available to clarify status.
The ombudsman’s wider comment that more people are contacting its service because they feel councils are not providing the help they are due adds pressure on local authorities to ensure front-line advice and internal procedures are robust, particularly in areas such as planning where mistakes can lead to unapproved developments being completed.
In York, the upheld complaints — and the requirement for an apology — will likely prompt internal reviews of guidance given to members of the public and could lead to changes in how planning enquiries are recorded and resolved.
