A divisionDivision No. 355 · Thursday, 13 November 2025· Commons· Planning

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

244Ayes
132Noes
Carried · majority 112 · Government won
271 did not vote
Aye244No134DID NOT VOTE · 271

647 Members · Aye 244 · No 132 · DNV 271 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted 244 to 132 on 13 November 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 40 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Lords amendment would have restricted Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) to strategic landscape matters, preventing them from being used to address harm to protected sites and species. The government's motion to disagree with that restriction passed, meaning EDPs will be able to cover a wider range of environmental impacts, including those affecting protected habitats and species. The vote concerns a central mechanism in the Bill's new Nature Restoration Fund. Under the system created by Part 3 of the Bill, developers can pay a levy to Natural England rather than carrying out site-by-site environmental mitigation. Those funds are then used for conservation measures set out in an EDP. Rejecting the Lords amendment means that EDPs can be used where development affects protected sites and species, not only broader landscape matters. Critics argued this risks allowing habitat destruction to proceed before replacement measures can take effect, with consequences for species already under pressure. The government's position was that restricting EDPs to strategic landscape matters would arbitrarily limit the fund's usefulness and that existing safeguards, including a requirement that conservation measures materially outweigh negative effects on environmental features, are sufficient. The division split almost entirely along party lines. All 240 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government. All 74 Conservatives, all 46 Liberal Democrats, all four Green MPs, all five Reform UK MPs, and the two Your Party MPs who voted opposed the motion. A small number of independents voted on both sides. No significant cross-party alliances or Labour rebellions were recorded. The result sits alongside several other government victories on the same day overturning Lords amendments to the same Bill, including rejections of amendments on related environmental and planning matters in Divisions 351 through 354.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords restriction, allowing Environmental Delivery Plans to cover protected habitats and species as well as broader landscape matters, trusting that safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to protect nature
Voting No meant
Oppose overriding the Lords amendment, arguing that allowing EDPs to cover protected sites and species risks enabling developers to destroy irreplaceable habitats before replacement measures can work, and that stronger statutory protections for the mitigation hierarchy are needed first
§ 01Who voted how.376 voting Members · 271 absent

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
214
0
147
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
74
42
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
46
25
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
26
0
16
Independent
4
3
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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Matthew PennycookSupportiveGreenwich and Woolwich
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)
David SimmondsOpposedRuislip, Northwood and Pinner
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)
Florence EshalomiNeutralVauxhall and Camberwell Green
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)
Gideon AmosOpposedTaunton and Wellington
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)
Dame Meg HillierNeutralHackney South and Shoreditch
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)
Neil Duncan-JordanOpposedPoole
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 no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (719 words)
Kit MalthouseOpposedNorth West Hampshire
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)
Ruth CadburyOpposedBrentford and Isleworth
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0