Protesters have accused South Hams Council of 'maladministration' over the way it has handled the planning row involving a £200,000 railway station office block which was built without planning permission.

Talks have been going on with Dartmouth Steam Railway and Riverboat Company over submitting a planning application for the 'signal box' office complex at Kingswear following a report from a team of independent legal advisers.

Now the campaign group which has insisted that the rail bosses should have applied for planning permission from the start has made a formal complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Kingswear Action on Rail and Riverboat Development protest group claims the council failed to require the rail company to submit a planning application in the first place.

In the complaint to the ombudsman, the rail group said: 'It has now been established by legal counsel that planning permission should have been sought to carry out these development and South Hams Council should have undertaken an environment impact assessment.'

And it adds: 'We ask that, as the independent body, you investigate the injustice caused to the residents and citizens of Kingswear by service failure and maladministration on the part of SHDC.'

The rail company completed and occupied the office block at the station at the end of last year, claiming that, as a rail company, it was exempt from having to apply for planning permission.

The campaigners forced South Hams Council to commission a legal report to sort out whether this was true.

The subsequent legal report made it clear that relatively new planning rules involving environmental impact assessments means the offices did need planning permission and also suggested the removal of the old rails would also need listed building consent.

Last month, the council confirmed its officers had met steam railway representatives and a letter had been sent out inviting the company to submit a retrospective planning application within 'the next three months'.

Campaign group chairman Richard Rawlins said the complaints centred on the time it took the district council to produce the legal advice which meant the group did not have time to clarify various issues and that since then the council itself has not attempted to seek clarification of certain issues.

He said: 'It is now clear that SHDC knew, or should have known, of the necessity for an environmental impact assessment, including meaningful consultations with all interested parties, and should have required that planning permissions be obtained before the railway tracks were removed and the building constructed – a principle that applies to all local residents, without fear or favour. We have complained thirdly that SHDC has failed to act in the matter.'

A South Hams Council spokesman said: 'We have acted in good faith at every step of the way in trying to meet with KARRD's calls for an independent assessment of the circumstances surrounding whether there was a need for planning permission to be sought by the rail company.

'KARRD worked closely with our legal representative to obtain advice from counsel. South Hams Council has followed that advice and we have asked for the rail company to submit a retrospective planning application. This will enable residents to have their say concerning the impact of the building within the area of outstanding natural beauty.

'It is disappointing that after such close collaboration that a complaint is being made to the Local Government Ombudsman.

'We refute the claims made by KARRD and will, of course, co-operate fully with the LGO in any investigation.'