Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3

Thursday, 13 November 2025 · Division No. 349 · Commons

255Ayes

–

128Noes

Passed

262 MPs did not vote

Planning

rightGovernment wonPro Planning Deregulation(Yes)Pro Housebuilding(Yes)Pro Planning Safeguards(No)Lords Scrutiny(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, keeping planning processes streamlined without the additional notification and representation requirements the Lords wanted to add.

Voting No means

Back the Lords amendment and its additional notification and representation requirements, arguing these provide important safeguards in the planning process.

What happened: On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted by 255 to 128 to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have introduced additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences were to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects. The government successfully overturned it.

Why it matters: The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is the government's central legislative vehicle for meeting its target of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 major infrastructure decisions by the end of this Parliament. By rejecting Lords Amendment 3, the Commons removed what the government argued was a layer of procedural requirements specific to dam and reservoir projects that would have duplicated protections already available elsewhere in the system. The practical effect is that demolition of 20 or more homes as part of such infrastructure projects will not trigger the distinct notification and representation process the Lords had sought to create, keeping the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure on the streamlined footing the government prefers.

The politics: The vote followed a clean party-line split. All 254 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservatives (75), Liberal Democrats (40), Reform UK (6), the Greens (4) and most independents voted against. This division was one of several held on the same day as the Commons worked through a package of Lords amendments, with results in each broadly mirroring this one. The bill sits at the heart of the government's economic growth mission, but opposition parties and some backbenchers have raised concerns about environmental protections, democratic accountability and whether the reforms will actually deliver the homes promised.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye

226 Aye/0 No

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/75 No

Liberal DemocratsWhipped No

0 Aye/40 No

Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye

28 Aye/0 No

Independent

2 Aye/5 No

Reform UKWhipped No

0 Aye/6 No

Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No

0 Aye/4 No

Your Party

0 Aye/1 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.

Voted Aye

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