Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3
255
Ayes
—
128
Noes
Passed · Government won
262 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted by 255 to 128 to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have introduced additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences were to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects. The government successfully overturned it. **Why it matters:** The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is the government's central legislative vehicle for meeting its target of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 major infrastructure decisions by the end of this Parliament. By rejecting Lords Amendment 3, the Commons removed what the government argued was a layer of procedural requirements specific to dam and reservoir projects that would have duplicated protections already available elsewhere in the system. The practical effect is that demolition of 20 or more homes as part of such infrastructure projects will not trigger the distinct notification and representation process the Lords had sought to create, keeping the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure on the streamlined footing the government prefers. **The politics:** The vote followed a clean party-line split. All 254 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservatives (75), Liberal Democrats (40), Reform UK (6), the Greens (4) and most independents voted against. This division was one of several held on the same day as the Commons worked through a package of Lords amendments, with results in each broadly mirroring this one. The bill sits at the heart of the government's economic growth mission, but opposition parties and some backbenchers have raised concerns about environmental protections, democratic accountability and whether the reforms will actually deliver the homes promised.
Voting Aye meant
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.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment and its additional notification and representation requirements, arguing these provide important safeguards in the planning process.
383 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 262 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
226
0
136
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
75
41
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
40
32
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
2
5
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
1
—
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