Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 32

Thursday, 13 November 2025 · Division No. 350 · Commons

268Ayes
78Noes
Passed

302 MPs did not vote

centreGovernment wonPro Planning Reform(Yes)Lords Oversight Support(No)Pro Environment(No)Anti Planning Liberalisation(No)

Voting Yes means

Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 32, backing the government's approach to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill over the Lords' proposed change

Voting No means

Oppose the government's rejection of Lords Amendment 32, believing the Lords' amendment should be retained in the Bill

What happened: On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted by 268 to 78 to disagree with Lords Amendment 32 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This meant the Commons rejected a change introduced by the House of Lords and reasserted the government's original position on that element of the legislation. The motion passed comfortably, with government supporters outnumbering opponents by a margin of nearly four to one.

Why it matters: The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is the government's flagship legislation for speeding up the delivery of new homes and major infrastructure projects. The government has set a target of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects before the end of this Parliament. Lords Amendment 32 was one of several changes introduced in the upper chamber that the government argued would complicate or obstruct that delivery. By voting to disagree, the Commons kept the Bill closer to the government's preferred form, clearing a path toward Royal Assent. The division was one of a cluster of similar votes held on the same day, all concerning Lords amendments to the same Bill.

The politics: The vote divided largely along party lines. All 255 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position. The Conservatives provided virtually all of the opposition, with 73 of their MPs voting against, joined by 6 Reform UK members and 1 independent. The Greens backed the government, voting aye. The Liberal Democrats did not appear among the no votes, though their spokesperson raised concerns in debate about democratic accountability and environmental protections in other amendments. The division sits within a broader political contest over planning reform, with the Conservatives accusing the government of causing a decline in housing starts, and the government pointing to planning laws as the structural barrier it is trying to remove.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
228 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/73 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27 Aye/0 No
Independent
7 Aye/1 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/6 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4 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.

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