THE future of a major expansion and redevelopment of a leading Exmoor-based business is hanging in the balance.

Controversial plans put forward by Shearwell Data Ltd first went before Exmoor National Park Authority's planning committee in September.

But the application from the Wheddon Cross company to revamp its Putham Farm base was deferred to allow members to visit the site and to receive landscape advice from the authority's head of conservation and access, along with an independent agricultural appraisal.

With the additional information now available, further information and slight amendments submitted by company owner Richard Webber, and the site visit having taken place, members will consider the scheme again on Tuesday.

But national park head of planning David Wyborn is making no recommendation on the proposals, leaving a decision entirely up to the planning committee.

The scheme, which has sparked controversy locally and attracted a raft of opposition, would see the creation of a new access road and replacement of existing buildings at the Putham Farm site with offices and research facilities.

Shearwell Data Ltd specialises in animal identification and tagging systems but also has a lifestock unit.

Its expansion plans would involve the creation of light industrial workplace and the development of new agricultural buildings, as well as an extended car park for 97 vehicles.

The business currently employs 50 full-time and ten part-time staff, a figure expected to almost double over the next decade, with the creation of 30 new jobs promised within the next 18 months if the scheme gets the go ahead.

In a report to the committee, Mr Wyborn said the application proposed substantial development in an open countryside location within the national park and therefore required very careful consideration.

He said although all the technical issues, such as highways, drainage and ecology had been addressed, the key issues revolved around the application of policies and the compatibility with national park purposes.

"These are matters of judgement and involve weighing the various planning considerations and impacts to reach a decision," said Mr Wyborn.

"There are strong arguments and representations both in favour and against the proposals."

Mr Wyborn said that whilst Mr Webber argued that the site was a sustainable location to expand what was an established business without harming the landscape, objectors argued that the scale of the scheme meant there was a fundamental objection in principle and that the impact of the activities was not compatible with such an open countryside location.

In terms of landscape, the authority's head of conservation and access had concluded that the character and appearance of the site within the wider landscape would be changed.

However, demolishing and rebuilding the existing building would have a positive impact on the immediate and surrounding area.

The enlarged car park would be unlikely to have a negative visual impact but the impact of the proposed new access road at its entrance would be adverse and significant.

The new building would also have an adverse visual impact, largely because of its scale.

Mr Wyborn said that although the plans had been amended, slightly reducing the eaves, pitch of the roof and ridge height of some sections of the proposed structure, it was still large and would be apparent in the landscape.

Advice from Smiths Gore, who carried out the independent agricultural assessment, was that the size of the building was justified on the basis of the higher stocking levels, although these levels were not typical of such upland farm holdings - a claim disputed by Mr Webber.

However, the size could only be justified on the basis of the combined Putham Farm and Lower House holding and the level of stocking was dependent on the additional grazing land being available.

Mr Wyborn said the anticipated economic and employment benefits from the expansion were material planning considerations but compliance with the national park purposes had to be the overriding consideration.

And he said it was not possible to limit the activities to a particular type of business or named company, meaning that in the future the new building could potentially have another type of B1 business use.

"The committee will need to very carefully consider all the planning issues and the weight to be attracted to each consideration," he said.

"The overall scale of the scheme, taking into account the car park, business extensions, barn and roadway need to be considered."