My noble friend knows that the last thing I ever want to do is to disappoint him, but I think that he is not going to be as pleased with me on this occasion as he might be on others. However, that is only because this amendment replicates what is already set out in secondary legislation. I am pleased to say that local planning authorities already have the power to make local development orders, so it is not necessary to make this change. Similarly, there are powers for a local authority to remove national permitted development rights where it has concerns about the impact of permitted development rights locally. As we have already heard, this is achieved through an Article 4 direction and should be done in consultation with the local community.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that Article 4 directions should be limited to situations where they are necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area. Article 4 directions should, therefore, be used sparingly as they remove relaxations which the Government have brought forward. These relaxations remove costs and burdens from local people and allow them the freedom and flexibility to make the best use of their properties. I know that there is a claim—noble Lords have repeated it today—that the Article 4 process is burdensome. However, we disagree. Rather it seeks to ensure that those whose permitted development rights are being removed are consulted and that there are safeguards against inappropriate use of the power. I do not think that there would be support for the reimposition of those burdens without proper consultation.
4 pm
Where the aim is to increase permitted development rights locally, local development orders provide a quick and simple way to do so. After a slow start under the previous Administration, the number of local development orders being put in place across England has continued to increase. Local authorities are recognising the benefits of this flexible tool which can be put in place through a simple and streamlined procedure. More than 65 local development orders have now been put in place in enterprise zones, and as we speak local development orders are contributing to growth by helping speed up delivery of everything from small domestic alterations to major industrial developments. That is the bit in my response that my noble friend Lord Jenkin might find encouraging.
We are further promoting the use of local development orders to bring forward much needed housing on brownfield sites. As set out recently by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we want local authorities to use local development orders to contribute to the granting of planning permissions on more than 90% of brownfield sites suitable for housing by 2020. We estimate that this could deliver 200,000 new homes. That these permissions will be delivered through local development orders confirms our commitment to encouraging local authorities to deliver housing to meet their needs. We will shortly be inviting local authorities to bid for a share of £5 million of funding to support local development orders for housing on brownfield land. This reinforces our commitment to local planning decisions being made at local level, which is a point I made in response to the first debate on Part 3.
As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie said, this matter was most recently discussed in this House during the passage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill 2013. As he reminded the Committee, my predecessor committed to revise guidance on Article 4 directions and to remove the Secretary of State’s role in the making of local development orders. We have delivered on both those commitments. I am pleased to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we have done precisely what we promised to do. On this basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Tope will feel able to withdraw the amendment.