Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Government amendment (a) to Lords Amendment 2

Thursday, 13 November 2025 · Division No. 348 · Commons

264Ayes
125Noes
Passed

262 MPs did not vote

centreGovernment wonPro Planning Reform(Yes)Pro Heritage Protection(No)Pro Infrastructure Delivery(Yes)Lords Scrutiny Respect(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the Government's modified version of the Lords amendment, accepting its core intent on national policy statements but removing requirements for separate heritage and archaeological consents in dam/reservoir development applications.

Voting No means

Prefer the Lords amendment as originally passed, including the requirement for separate consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites in dam or reservoir development consent applications.

Parliament voted 264 to 125 to approve the government's amendment (amendment (a)) to Lords Amendment 2 on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The government amendment accepted the broad intent of the Lords change but removed two specific subsections, numbered (7) and (8), which would have required listed building, conservation area and archaeological site consents to be obtained separately from the main development consent order for dam and reservoir projects. The vote passed comfortably, with Labour MPs providing the overwhelming majority of support.

The practical effect is that heritage and archaeological consents for nationally significant dam and reservoir infrastructure will continue to be handled within the single development consent order process rather than as separate parallel applications. The government argued this keeps the streamlined approach to major infrastructure delivery intact, which is central to its stated goal of fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. More broadly, this vote was one of several on the same day in which the government pushed back against Lords amendments that it believed would slow or complicate its planning reform agenda, while the wider Bill is intended to contribute to delivering 1.5 million new homes in England.

The vote divided almost entirely along government and opposition lines. All 249 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour, with zero voting against. Conservatives (76 no votes), Liberal Democrats (43 no votes) and Reform UK (5 no votes) all voted against. Four Green MPs voted with the government, as did one Democratic Unionist Party MP and seven independents. The Liberal Democrats used the debate to press for stronger statutory environmental protections, particularly around chalk streams and the mitigation hierarchy within environmental delivery plans, while the Conservatives focused criticism on what they described as a collapse in housing starts under the current government. This vote was part of a broader ping-pong (the process by which the Commons and Lords exchange amendments) session on 13 November 2025, in which the government also successfully overturned several other Lords amendments on the same day.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
223 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/76 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/43 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26 Aye/0 No
Independent
7 Aye/1 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4 Aye/0 No
Democratic Unionist Party
1 Aye/0 No
Your Party
1 Aye/0 No

What They Said in the Debate

David Simmonds

Conservative · Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner

Opposed

Bill fails to deliver promised growth, homelessness, and infrastructure; government's centralization of planning power, green belt vulnerability, and failures on business costs (national insurance) are preventing house building despite existing permissions.

Voted No

Gideon Amos

Liberal Democrat · Taunton and Wellington

Opposed

Lords amendments 38 and 40 on chalk streams and species protection are essential; EDPs must be limited to strategic landscape scales; centralization of power via clause 51 removes essential local democratic accountability.

Voted No

Neil Duncan-Jordan

Labour · Poole

Opposed

Lords amendment 40 must be accepted; species and habitats cannot be traded away through strategic EDPs—environmental delivery plans unsuited to protecting site-specific biodiversity and declining species.

Voted Aye

Kit Malthouse

Conservative · North West Hampshire

Opposed

Minister's reassurances on chalk stream protection via national policy are insufficient and undelivered; statutory protection through Lords amendment 38 or equivalent concrete commitment needed, not vague future intentions.

Voted No

Ruth Cadbury

Labour · Brentford and Isleworth

Opposed

Lords amendment 1 concerns justified—Select Committees need genuine opportunity to scrutinize major infrastructure via national policy statements; government claims proportionate scrutiny do not adequately address reduced committee time.

Voted Aye

Florence Eshalomi

Labour · Vauxhall and Camberwell Green

Neutral

Welcome pragmatic government amendments on environmental delivery plans, but Lords amendment 1 concerns are valid—Select Committees must retain meaningful scrutiny role despite government efficiency arguments.

Voted Aye

Dame Meg Hillier

Labour · Hackney South and Shoreditch

Neutral

Supports government's reflective amendment procedure for efficiency but requires firm reassurances: ministers must appear before Select Committees reliably, engage early with Committees, and clock should count only sitting days.

Matthew Pennycook

Labour · Greenwich and Woolwich

Supportive

Government must reject most Lords amendments to preserve streamlined planning process and £7.5bn economic benefit; selective concessions on EV charging and environmental delivery plans reflect proportionate scrutiny, not undermining Bill's core principles.

Voted Aye

Related Votes