Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 39
250
Ayes
—
133
Noes
Passed · Government won
269 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted by 250 to 133 to disagree with Lords Amendment 39 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The vote was one of several on the same day in which the government sought to overturn changes made to the Bill by the House of Lords. Lords Amendment 39 concerned a brownfield-first approach to development, which would have required planning policy to prioritise building on previously developed land before greenfield or other sites could be considered. **Why it matters:** By rejecting this Lords amendment, the government preserved its position that brownfield land should be considered a priority through local planning policy rather than through a binding legislative requirement. Ministers argued that a statutory brownfield-first obligation would not account for the diversity of brownfield sites across England, many of which may be unsuitable or unviable, and that local authorities are better placed to weigh up such considerations. The vote keeps intact the government's broader approach to meeting its target of 1.5 million new homes in England by the end of this Parliament, under which planners retain flexibility to allocate greenfield land where brownfield supply is insufficient. **The politics:** The vote split almost entirely along party lines. All Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the Green Party all voted against. Two independent MPs voted with the government. The Lords amendment had drawn on analysis by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which Conservative MP Greg Smith cited in debate, claiming enough brownfield land exists for 1.4 million homes. The government rejected that framing. This division was one of at least five on the same day in which the Commons overruled the Lords on this Bill, reflecting the government's determination to secure Royal Assent quickly.
Voting Aye meant
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
Voting No meant
Oppose rejecting the Lords amendment; want to protect the countryside by legally requiring developers to prioritise brownfield sites before building on greenfield land
383 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 269 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
218
0
144
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
74
42
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
43
29
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
2
5
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
3
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