Planning
Planning policy and development control
Based on 18 parliamentary votes
Related Housing Issues
How Parties Voted on Planning
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment (Lords Amendment 39) that would have required developers to prioritise brownfield (previously developed) land over greenfield/countryside sites. The Government argued a brownfield-first but not brownfield-only approach is needed, as there is insufficient viable brownfield land to meet housing targets. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords amendment, backing the Government's flexible 'brownfield-first, not brownfield-only' approach to allow development on greenfield land where necessary to meet housing targets · No = Oppose rejecting the Lords amendment; want to protect the countryside by legally requiring developers to prioritise brownfield sites before building on greenfield land Govt: Aye | 248-132 | 13 Nov 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have required parliamentary approval (via the affirmative procedure) before the government could introduce a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions. The Lords wanted stronger parliamentary oversight over powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that concentrate significant decision-making authority in the hands of the Secretary of State. Yes = Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, accepting that existing consultation requirements are sufficient and that the affirmative parliamentary procedure is not needed for the national scheme of delegation · No = Support the Lords amendment, arguing that the Bill concentrates too much power in the Secretary of State and that Parliament should have a formal vote before a national scheme of delegation is introduced Govt: Aye | 255-130 | 13 Nov 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that sought to limit the range of environmental impacts that could be addressed through the government's new 'environmental delivery plans' (EDPs). The Lords wanted to restrict what environmental issues EDPs could cover, while the government argued its Nature Restoration Fund approach would deliver better outcomes for both housing development and biodiversity. Yes = 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 · No = 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 Govt: Aye | 244-134 | 13 Nov 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have given statutory protection to chalk streams — rare and ecologically important watercourses — in planning decisions. The Lords amendment, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrats, sought to embed chalk stream protections into the Planning and Infrastructure Bill; the government opposed it, preferring to rely on existing national planning frameworks. Yes = Support the government in rejecting statutory protections for chalk streams, arguing existing planning frameworks are sufficient · No = Back the Lords amendment to give chalk streams explicit statutory protection in planning law, preventing their destruction through development Govt: Aye | 252-133 | 13 Nov 2025 |
The Commons voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 32 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The government moved to disagree with this Lords change, meaning the amendment — which the Lords had added to the Bill — would be removed unless the Lords insists on it. Yes = Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 32, backing the government's approach to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill over the Lords' proposed change · No = Oppose the government's rejection of Lords Amendment 32, believing the Lords' amendment should be retained in the Bill Govt: Aye | 267-80 | 13 Nov 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a House of Lords change to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have given Parliament greater scrutiny of major infrastructure projects (such as new railways and airports). The government wanted to remove this Lords amendment, arguing the Bill should proceed without enhanced scrutiny requirements. Yes = Support the government's position of removing the Lords-inserted requirement for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of major infrastructure projects, prioritising faster delivery of infrastructure · No = Support the Lords amendment requiring stronger parliamentary oversight of major infrastructure decisions, arguing Parliament should have sufficient time to scrutinise projects like HS2 or Heathrow expansion Govt: Aye | 253-137 | 13 Nov 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have introduced additional notification and representation requirements into the planning process. The government argued these extra procedural steps were unnecessary and would slow down development. Yes = Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, keeping planning processes streamlined without the additional notification and representation requirements the Lords wanted to add. · No = Back the Lords amendment and its additional notification and representation requirements, arguing these provide important safeguards in the planning process. Govt: Aye | 256-131 | 13 Nov 2025 |
Vote on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have provided clarity on how 'assets of community value' (such as local pubs, libraries or community centres) are treated under planning rules. The government wanted to remove this amendment, promising consultation instead; opponents argued the Lords amendment should be kept to ensure the commitment was meaningful. Yes = Support the government in removing the Lords amendment, trusting ministerial promises to consult on how assets of community value are handled in planning · No = Keep the Lords amendment to enshrine clarity on assets of community value in law, rather than relying on a government promise to consult Govt: Aye | 255-131 | 13 Nov 2025 |
Vote on a Government amendment to a Lords change to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerning national policy statements. The Lords amendment related to development consent for dams or reservoirs near listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites; the Government supported most of it but sought to remove subsections requiring separate consents for heritage and archaeological protections, arguing those requirements were unworkable. Yes = Support the Government's modified version of the Lords amendment, accepting its core intent on national policy statements but removing requirements for separate heritage and archaeological consents in dam/reservoir development applications. · No = Prefer the Lords amendment as originally passed, including the requirement for separate consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites in dam or reservoir development consent applications. Govt: Aye | 262-125 | 13 Nov 2025 |
Vote on whether to give local authorities compulsory purchase powers to acquire land from uncooperative landowners in order to build active travel routes such as cycling and walking paths. The amendment aimed to remove a key barrier to delivering cycling and walking infrastructure. Yes = Support giving councils compulsory purchase powers to build cycling and walking routes, even over the objections of private landowners · No = Oppose extending compulsory purchase powers for active travel, preferring voluntary cooperation with landowners and community-led approaches Govt: No | 76-307 | 10 Jun 2025 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.