Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3
255Ayes
128Noes
Carried · majority 127 · Government won262 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 255 · No 128 · DNV 262 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 13 November 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 3 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, by 255 votes to 128 (Division 349). The amendment would have introduced additional notification and representation processes into the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects when 20 or more homes are to be demolished to build a dam or reservoir. The practical effect of rejecting the amendment is that dam and reservoir projects classed as nationally significant infrastructure projects will continue to be handled through the existing streamlined consenting process under the Planning Act 2008, without the extra procedural steps the Lords had inserted. The government argued that the current regime already gives communities and interested parties ample opportunity to have their say, and that bolting on further requirements would undermine the "one-stop shop" approach that the nationally significant infrastructure project regime was designed to provide. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted almost entirely in favour of rejection, supplying 253 of the 255 aye votes, with three independents also voting aye and no Labour members voting no. Conservatives (75), Liberal Democrats (40), Reform UK (6) and the Greens (4) all voted no, as did four independents and two members of Your Party. Mike Reader, a Labour MP, noted in debate that Lords Amendment 3 added layers of process that increased the risk of judicial review, implicitly challenging the Conservative opposition to square that position with their leader's stated commitment to cutting regulation. The vote was one of several on the same day in which the government successfully overturned Lords amendments to the same bill.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the streamlined 'one-stop shop' planning consent process for major dam and reservoir projects without extra notification requirements for demolition of homes.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, arguing that communities whose homes face demolition for dam or reservoir projects deserve additional statutory protections and notification rights beyond those already in the 2008 Planning Act.
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 Aye
225
0
136
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
75
41
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
40
31
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
3
4
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (7,734 words) →
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.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,245 words) →
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,012 words) →
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.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,748 words) →
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,346 words) →
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (719 words) →
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.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,430 words) →
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.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,762 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0