Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 39
250Ayes
133Noes
Carried · majority 117 · Government won269 did not vote
652 Members · Aye 250 · No 133 · DNV 269 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 39 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which would have required developers to prioritise building on brownfield (previously developed) land when drawing up strategic spatial development strategies. The government moved to disagree with the Lords' amendment, and the motion passed by 250 votes to 133. The vote removes a provision that would have embedded a brownfield-first principle in primary legislation. Strategic spatial development strategies are a new planning tier introduced by the Act to coordinate housing and infrastructure across local authority boundaries. By rejecting the amendment, the government leaves decisions about the balance between brownfield and greenfield (undeveloped countryside) land to local planning policy rather than fixing a statutory hierarchy. Supporters of the Lords' amendment had argued it would protect countryside from development and push housebuilding towards already-urbanised land; the government countered that a rigid legislative requirement ignores local circumstances and the practical limits of the brownfield land supply. Party lines held almost completely. Labour MPs and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted overwhelmingly for the government position, contributing all 250 aye votes alongside three independents. Conservatives (74), Liberal Democrats (43), Reform UK (5) and the Greens (4) all voted against, along with four independents and two MPs listed under "Your Party". There were no recorded cross-party rebellions from the Labour benches. The vote was one of several on the same day in which the Commons rejected Lords amendments to the Bill, with comparable results across related divisions on Lords amendments 1, 3, 32 and 33.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords' brownfield-first requirement, arguing that local planning policy is the right place to weigh up land suitability rather than a blanket legislative mandate
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' amendment to embed a brownfield-first principle in law, protecting greenfield and countryside from development and pushing housebuilding towards previously developed urban land
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
217
0
144
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
74
42
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
43
28
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
5
3
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