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
On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 37 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, a modification that had been introduced by the House of Lords. The motion to disagree with the amendment passed by 254 votes to 129. The amendment would have exempted assets of community value from a permitted development right that allows demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. By voting to reject it, the Commons sided with the government's position that this exemption was unnecessary. Assets of community value are properties formally listed by local councils as important to a community, such as local pubs, libraries, or sports grounds, which communities can nominate for protection when a sale is proposed. Lords Amendment 37 would have given those listed assets a specific shield against a permitted development right that allows demolition without going through a full planning application. With the amendment rejected, the government's broader planning reform agenda advances without that additional layer of protection for community assets. The vote is one of a series of divisions on the same day in which the Commons pushed back against a range of Lords modifications to the Bill, all of which sought to tighten environmental, democratic, or local protections that the government argues would slow down housing and infrastructure delivery. The division followed near-perfect party lines. All 253 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, while Conservatives (72), Liberal Democrats (45), Greens (4), Reform UK (4), and a majority of independents voted against. There were no notable rebels on either side. The vote sits within a broader ping-pong process (the back-and-forth between the two chambers) in which the government has consistently moved to overturn Lords amendments across multiple divisions on the same day, reflecting a firm government view that the Bill must reach Royal Assent quickly and without substantial modification to its core planning deregulation framework.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government in removing the Lords amendment, trusting ministerial promises to consult on how assets of community value are handled in planning
Voting No meant
Keep the Lords amendment to enshrine clarity on assets of community value in law, rather than relying on a government promise to consult
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
27
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
3
5
5
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
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
Your Party
—
0
1
0
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