Planning and Infrastructure Bill Report Stage: New Clause 22
73Ayes
312Noes
Defeated · majority 239 · Government won266 did not vote
651 Members · Aye 73 · No 312 · DNV 266 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament defeated a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on 10 June 2025, by 312 votes to 73. New Clause 22, tabled by Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame), would have established a "compelling case" justification for local authorities to use compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) to acquire land for new footpaths and cycle paths, equivalent to the justification already available for road schemes. The amendment's practical effect would have been to put active travel infrastructure, cycling and walking routes, on the same legal footing as road projects when local authorities seek to acquire land compulsorily. Proponents argued that while CPO powers for active travel already exist in theory, local authorities are reluctant to use them without a clear statutory basis. Van Mierlo pointed out that the Department for Transport had not even assessed the effectiveness of existing CPO powers for active travel schemes, which he described as surprising given the Bill's stated aim of speeding up infrastructure delivery. The Liberal Democrats voted unanimously for the amendment, joined by all four Plaid Cymru MPs, all four Green MPs, all four Democratic Unionist Party MPs, one Conservative, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, and two independents. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted solidly against, providing nearly all of the 312 noes. One Conservative spoke in opposition, with Paul Holmes arguing that his party "fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers" in the new clause, though the overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs had no vote recorded. The Ulster Unionist Party's single MP voted no.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving local authorities stronger compulsory purchase powers to deliver active travel infrastructure such as cycle paths and footpaths, on the same footing as road projects.
Voting No meant
Reject extending compulsory purchase powers for active travel, citing concerns about forcing change on landowners and communities rather than bringing them along voluntarily.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
274
87
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
1
0
115
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
60
0
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
29
13
Independent
—
2
3
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
New Clause 22 should require statutory guidance on using CPOs for active travel routes to match existing CPO use for roads, citing Welsh precedent and evidence that current guidance is insufficientLiberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,076 words) →
Supports development corporation powers as critical for delivery but warns against forcing behaviour change through CPOs; emphasis needed on working with communities and sustainabilityLabour · Voted no · Read full speech (212 words) →
Bill represents over-centralisation by Minister and Deputy PM; opposes most new clauses as they extend CPO powers; calls for improved compensation (New Clause 85) and fairness to farmers and landownersConservatives · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (4,377 words) →
Supports amendments 88/89 on recreational land and New Clause 107 on public land disposal; opposes New Clause 85 as it would double-pay landowners and reduce council housing; backs community-led infrastructure approachLiberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,915 words) →
Amendment 68 would allow councils to acquire land at current use value without hope value to deliver council homes; argues developer-led model has failed to produce affordable housing despite high supplyConservative · Voted no · Read full speech (783 words) →
New Clause 128 should establish community benefit scheme requiring 20% of CPO value paid into local community funds; CPO powers need stronger checks and balances to protect rural communities from industrial energy infrastructureConservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (810 words) →
Amendments 88/89 should extend hope value disregard to recreational facilities; New Clause 107 should allow discounted disposal of public land for public good purposesLiberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,454 words) →
Bill addresses false dichotomy between development and nature; smaller 'little and often' developments vital for rural communities; supports streamlining to enable local projects like affordable housing for school retentionLabour · Voted no · Read full speech (800 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0