Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37
254Ayes
129Noes
Carried · majority 125 · Government won263 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 254 · No 129 · DNV 263 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 13 November 2025 to reject Lords amendment 37 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, by 254 votes to 129. The amendment would have exempted assets of community value, such as local pubs, libraries and community centres, from permitted development rights that currently allow their demolition without full planning permission. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords passed, meaning the protection was not written into the Bill. The practical effect is that assets of community value remain subject to the existing permitted development right for demolition. Those seeking to demolish such assets do not need to obtain full planning permission as things stand. The minister, Matthew Pennycook, acknowledged that the government agrees with the principle behind the amendment and that there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of assets of community value from permitted development rights. However, he argued that permitted development rights are established through secondary legislation, and that changing a specific right through this Bill without prior consultation would be inappropriate. He committed to consulting on the change at the first available opportunity. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs provided all 254 ayes, with 224 and 28 votes respectively. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Reform UK and several smaller parties or independents made up the 129 noes. No Conservative or Liberal Democrat MP voted with the government. The result mirrors a series of other divisions on the same day in which the government successfully rejected multiple Lords amendments to the Bill, with the noes consistently numbering in the 125 to 135 range across those related votes.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's argument that changes to permitted development rights must go through a dedicated consultation process rather than being inserted into this Bill.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, which would have immediately protected assets of community value from demolition under permitted development rights, without waiting for a future consultation that may not materialise.
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
224
0
137
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
72
44
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
45
26
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
4
4
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