Should the specification support hybrid planning applications?

[colmjude]

We are considering whether the specification needs to support a hybrid planning application type.

At the moment, our understanding is:

• hybrid is recognised in practice and in guidance
• but it does not seem to be a distinct application type defined in statute
• in simple terms, it means one application that seeks full permission for one part of a site and outline permission for another part of the same site

It sounds as though hybrid cases are often handled in a fairly improvised way:

• they may be treated as full in back-office systems
• the applicant may use the full application form
• outline detail may then be provided in the planning statement rather than through a distinct hybrid form

In the current specification model, full and outline-some already resolve to the same set of modules. So it is not yet clear what a distinct hybrid type would need to add in data terms.

Before we proceed with further work on this, we would like to understand whether the sector would find explicit support for hybrid applications useful.

Questions

1. Do you encounter hybrid applications in practice?
2. If so, how are they currently handled?
3. Would it be useful for the specification to recognise hybrid as its own application type or application choice?
4. If yes, what would you expect that to change in practice?
5. Are there examples, local guidance, or public forms we should look at?

The aim here is not to design a hybrid type immediately, but to test whether this is a real sector need and, if so, what problem it should solve.