Planning.
Planning policy and development control
Each row is one party. The bar shows how its MPs voted relative to a neutral midpoint — to the right = on-side with the majority position, to the left = opposed. The percentage figure is the share of that party’s MPs who took the same side: higher = more whip-disciplined, closer to 50% = a freer vote.
| Party | Stance vs neutral midpoint | Net % | Discipline | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour Party | Lab | 0 | 50% on-whip · 356 MPs | |
| Conservative and Unionist Party | Con | -7 | 43% on-whip · 112 MPs | |
| Liberal Democrats | LD | -4 | 46% on-whip · 70 MPs | |
| Labour and Co-operative Party | Lab | 0 | 50% on-whip · 42 MPs | |
| Independent | Ind | +4 | 54% on-whip · 13 MPs | |
| Reform UK | Ref | -5 | 45% on-whip · 8 MPs | |
| Democratic Unionist Party | DUP | +11 | 61% on-whip · 5 MPs | |
| Green Party of England and Wales | Grn | -3 | 47% on-whip · 5 MPs |
Source · Hansard · alignment is the share of party MPs who voted with the party majority on tagged divisions
| Date | Motion | Aye | No | Carried |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 Jul 2026 | Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 Aye: Support streamlining planning decisions by removing councillors' ability to block small housing applications, prioritising housebuilding and lower construction costs over local political control. · No: Oppose the regulations as an erosion of local democratic accountability, arguing elected councillors should retain scrutiny over planning applications in their areas regardless of size. | 283 | 181 | Yes |
| 13 Nov 2025 | Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 Aye: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the streamlined 'one-stop shop' planning consent process for major dam and reservoir projects without extra notification requirements for demolition of homes. · No: Support the Lords amendment, arguing that communities whose homes face demolition for dam or reservoir projects deserve additional statutory protections and notification rights beyond those already in the 2008 Planning Act. | 256 | 131 | Yes |
| 13 Nov 2025 | Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Government amendment (a) to Lords Amendment 2 Aye: Support the government's modified version of the Lords amendment, which accepts heritage concerns in principle but removes requirements for separate heritage consents in dam and reservoir projects, preserving the streamlined 'one-stop shop' nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. · No: Prefer the original Lords amendment as passed, which would have required separate consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites when approving dam or reservoir projects, providing additional heritage protection beyond the existing planning process. | 262 | 125 | Yes |
| 13 Nov 2025 | Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37 Aye: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's argument that changes to permitted development rights must go through a dedicated consultation process rather than being inserted into this Bill. · No: Support the Lords amendment, which would have immediately protected assets of community value from demolition under permitted development rights, without waiting for a future consultation that may not materialise. | 255 | 131 | Yes |
| 13 Nov 2025 | Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38 Aye: Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's view that chalk stream protection does not need to be hardwired into spatial development strategies via this Bill · No: Support keeping the Lords amendment to give chalk streams statutory protection within spatial development strategies, arguing existing and proposed protections are insufficient | 252 | 133 | Yes |
All 19 divisions on this issue →
By party, the MPs whose voting record on planning is most closely tracking the party majority. A fuller “most active by speech volume + written questions” ranking is pending — needs per-issue speech aggregation.
LabLabour Party
| MP | Constituency | % on-whip |
|---|---|---|
| Hilary Benn | Leeds South | 83% |
| Barry Gardiner | Brent West | 83% |
| Liam Byrne | Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North | 83% |
ConConservative and Unionist Party
| MP | Constituency | % on-whip |
|---|---|---|
| Neil O'Brien | Harborough, Oadby and Wigston | 83% |
| Graham Stuart | Beverley and Holderness | 80% |
| Geoffrey Cox | Torridge and Tavistock | 80% |
LDLiberal Democrats
| MP | Constituency | % on-whip |
|---|---|---|
| Max Wilkinson | Cheltenham | 83% |
| Tim Farron | Westmorland and Lonsdale | 71% |
| Sarah Gibson | Chippenham | 71% |
LabLabour and Co-operative Party
| MP | Constituency | % on-whip |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Lightwood | Wakefield and Rothwell | 82% |
| Gareth Thomas | Harrow West | 82% |
| Seema Malhotra | Feltham and Heston | 82% |
IndIndependent
| MP | Constituency | % on-whip |
|---|---|---|
| Ayoub Khan | Birmingham Perry Barr | 100% |
| Adnan Hussain | Blackburn | 75% |
| Alex Easton | North Down | 75% |
RefReform UK
| MP | Constituency | % on-whip |
|---|---|---|
| Suella Braverman | Fareham and Waterlooville | 100% |
| Lee Anderson | Ashfield | 56% |
| Danny Kruger | East Wiltshire | 56% |
Mapping each Westminster issue to the equivalent council service bucket (so “Planning” → the matching service line on council finance, with the ranked-spend table this section wants) is its own taxonomy job. Council service spend lives on the council pages today; cross-cut by issue here in a follow-on pass.
The primary material behind this topic, assembled for anyone writing about it: House of Commons Library briefings (Open Parliament Licence), the divisions tagged to it, and recent committee evidence. Every item links to its source. Want it worked into a question you actually have? Commission a research briefing.
Loading sources…
What the parliamentary record shows on this topic, in date order — each vote, Library briefing and evidence session, linked to the primary item. A record of what happened, not a commentary on it.
Loading the record…