Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 40

Thursday, 13 November 2025 · Division No. 355 · Commons

244Ayes
132Noes
Passed

271 MPs did not vote

leftGovernment wonPro Housing Development(Yes)Pro Environment(No)Pro Nature Restoration Fund(Yes)Pro Lords Scrutiny(No)

Voting Yes means

Support rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the government's broader approach to environmental delivery plans under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, trusting that EDPs can address a wide range of environmental impacts alongside development

Voting No means

Support the Lords amendment restricting the scope of environmental delivery plans, arguing tighter limits are needed to protect habitats and biodiversity from being traded off against development pressure

What happened: On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 40 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, meaning MPs overrode a change the House of Lords had made to the legislation. The motion passed by 244 votes to 132. Lords Amendment 40 had sought to restrict the range of environmental impacts that could be addressed through a new mechanism called an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP), limiting its application to strategic landscape matters only. By voting to disagree, the Commons rejected that restriction and kept the broader scope of EDPs intact.

Why it matters: Environmental Delivery Plans are central to Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which introduces a new Nature Restoration Fund (NRF). The NRF is intended to replace the current system under which developers must individually discharge environmental obligations, site by site, before building can begin. The government argues this site-by-site approach frequently delays or deters development. Under the new model, developers would contribute to a strategic fund, allowing environmental improvements to be delivered at scale rather than piecemeal. Lords Amendment 40 would have confined EDPs to landscape-level matters only, preventing them from being used to address impacts on individual species or habitats at the project level. The government contended that this restriction would undermine the whole purpose of the NRF. Critics, including some Labour MPs and opposition parties, argued that removing site-level protections risks allowing local populations of species to be permanently lost, since populations destroyed at a given location may never return.

The politics: The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. All 241 Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of disagreeing with the Lords amendment, while all 74 Conservative, 46 Liberal Democrat, 5 Reform UK, and 4 Green MPs who voted opposed the government. The Lib Dems argued that without a firm commitment to a stronger mitigation hierarchy within EDPs, they could not support removing Lords Amendment 40. The Greens and some independent members also voted against the government. The division on Amendment 40 was one of several on the same day, with related votes on Lords Amendments 1, 3, 32, and 33 all producing similar majorities for the government. The Bill represents a central plank of the government's economic growth agenda, and ministers pressed for Royal Assent quickly, framing planning reform as essential to delivering 1.5 million new homes and fast-tracking 150 major infrastructure decisions by the end of this Parliament.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
215 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/74 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/46 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
26 Aye/0 No
Independent
3 Aye/4 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/5 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.

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

Related Votes