Division · No. 216Monday, 9 June 2025Commons Planning

Planning and Infrastructure Bill Report Stage: New Clause 43

167
Ayes
334
Noes
Defeated · Government won
146 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened**: Parliament voted on New Clause 43 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill during its Report Stage on 9 June 2025. The new clause concerned compulsory purchase order (CPO) compensation arrangements, specifically seeking to strengthen protections for landowners and occupiers facing compulsory acquisition. The motion was defeated by 334 votes to 167. **Why it matters**: The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a major piece of legislation designed to accelerate housing delivery and infrastructure development across England. New Clause 43 touched on the compensation framework under which people can be forced to give up their land or homes through CPO powers. Its defeat means the existing compensation arrangements remain in place, and the additional protections sought for farmers, homeowners and business owners facing compulsory acquisition were not added to the Bill. The outcome reinforces the government's preference for a streamlined planning system centred on national targets and development speed rather than enhanced individual compensation rights. **The politics**: The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 328 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the new clause, while Conservatives (95), Liberal Democrats (55), Reform UK (6), most independents (8), and the Democratic Unionist Party (2) all voted in favour. There were no rebels on either side. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, despite differing on many issues, united in opposing what they characterised as excessive centralisation and inadequate community and environmental protections in the Bill. The government went on to pass the Bill at Third Reading the following day, 306 to 174, with opposition parties continuing to argue the legislation failed rural communities, farmers and environmental standards.

Voting Aye meant
Support giving villages statutory protection from overdevelopment, preserving their rural identity and preventing them from merging with neighbouring settlements
Voting No meant
Oppose adding village protection clauses to the Bill, prioritising housing delivery targets over local character and resisting restrictions that could limit new home building
§ 01Who voted how.501 voting members · 146 absent
Aye168No335DID NOT VOTE · 146

501 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 146 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
293
69
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
95
0
21
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
55
0
17
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
35
7
Independent
8
3
2
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
2
0
3
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.2 principal speakers
Matthew PennycookSupportiveGreenwich and Woolwich
Moving New Clause 69 to require examiners of development consent applications to take procedural decisions in light of initial assessments under the Planning Act 2008.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (7,052 words)
Nusrat GhaniOpposedSussex Weald
Tabling 92 new clauses that substantially expand planning protections for the environment, biodiversity, affordable housing, and agricultural land, and introduce stricter controls on developers and second homes.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (24,946 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