Development Economics and Planning - PowerPoint Presentation Example

The fact that a country cannot operate properly without infrastructure, it is thus, of a national strategic significance to expand and upgrade ample infrastructure in order to meet the augmenting demands that emanate from economic and populace growth. Infrastructure is very vital for any economy, and a key difference that exists between a developed economy and a less developed one is only the quality of infrastructure. Most of the infrastructural developments involve a lot of capital where a lot of money is spent to put the infrastructure in place (Hanak & Reed, 2009).
Planning for any infrastructure projects ensures that there exists a common understanding between the providers of the services, the developers, the council and the communities depending on the needs for the local infrastructure, when and how they will be provided. Even though planning for infrastructure has for a long period of time been a major consideration, its significance and the importance to demonstrate deliverability has in recent years gained eminence (Great Britain, 2008). Linked to the development tenders, the infrastructure planning process helps in ensuring that the population of Worth has the proper access to the services and facilities they require.
A new planning charge system was introduced in the year 2010 referred to us a community infrastructure levy as one of the development processes that enable the local authorities, especially in England and Wales to collect funds from the developers who undertake the new building tasks in the area. The amount of money collected is used in funding a number of infrastructures that are required as a result of development (Glaeser, 2012). The community infrastructure charging authorities who have the authority to impose charges on the levy in England include the unitary authorities, metropolitan districts, mayor of London among other bodies (Levy, 2011). All these listed bodies prepare development plans for their specific areas, informed by the evaluation of the infrastructural requirements that calls for the levy collection.
On the importance of this tariff-based development process, the government decided to embark on it because it provides the most efficient framework in the funding of the new infrastructure that helps in unlocking land for growth (Sharma, 2010). The community levy on infrastructure is said to be fairer, faster, extremely certain and also transparent compared to the system of planning commitments that result in delays brought about by lengthy negotiations. The levy rates are set after consultations are done with the developers and the local communities thus providing developers with more assurance on how much money is required to be contributed (Peterson, 2009).
Focusing on the system of planning commitments, only 6% of the planning permission brings any role to the cost of maintaining infrastructure when small developments are capable of crating need for services. The levy brings about a fairer system with all except the smallest building developments thus making a contribution to the additional infrastructure that is required due to their development (Public Policy Institute of California, 2006).
The community levy infrastructure offers the basis for a charge in a way that planning obligations systems only could not be in a position to attain the enabling of mitigation of the cumulative forces from development (Myles, 2004). Nevertheless, the developers are required to be equipped with much certainty pertaining to what they will be needed to contribute in order to speed up the development processes, and that the raised money from developers contributions should be used in a manner that developers will see worthwhile, especially on infrastructure to aid development and the development of sustainable communities established in the local development outline (United states, 2008).
Another importance of exploiting this development process is that public and the stake holder’s decisions are included while fixing the charges for the levy in an introductory draft on the charging arrangement (Albelson, 2011). It, therefore, limits the powers of the charging authorities to fix the levy rates as they wish, oppressing the local communities. Therefore, before any decision is reached to examine the draft charging schedule, a formal publication for presentations purposes is done for a duration of at least four weeks (Denyr-Green, 2012). At this period, any individual may appeal to be heard by the examiner in case the charging authority imposes other charges on the already published charging schedule.
On using this tariff-based development process to pay for infrastructure, an examiner can able to reject any form of charging schedule if at all the charging authority has not conformed with the aspects of the legislation, which by any means cannot be tackled by modifications (PWC, 2011). The recommendations of the examiner are made binding based on the charging authority. This implies that the charging authority must incorporate any modifications as recommended by the examiner in the adoption of the charging schedule and also, on the other hand, the charging authority cannot, in any case, adopt a given schedule if the examiner rejects it (Jean-Paul, 2009).