I think in many places it is common to focus on infrastructure at municipal and province/state levels, and to use zoning to help make sure that infrastructure can be matched to needs of residents, businesses and industry while allowing for a decent living situation.

In many places, it is considered as undesirable to go much further than that, except for the fact of needing to build or rent plenty of other building to perform many other tasks of government. In such cases, the role of spatial planning is fairly limited.

For example, in Toronto there is a waterfront. Much of it is public-access parkland. But some of it is residential, some of it is industrial (relic of the old days), and a very little bit of it is commercial (some restaurants and touristy spots right downtown). But the question of infrastructure isn't so challenging on public-access waterfront.

Good question in today's context. The district agencies with well equipped tools and experts may be an wonderful options, provided national level integration is possible and managed. This will add the solution for the problem of diverse situation and demand specially in India.

I have contributed a version of this answer for several questions, because I believe it applies to many of the problems discussed here, including this one. Answers depend exquisitely on the specific conditions under consideration. We think and plan differently for different situations at any scale. Planning approaches and decisions should be driven by the specific problems and goals of specific cities regions, etc. Perhaps what we should be discussing is which descriptors of a specific site should be considered in planning, but even the answer to this question will depend on the context in which we are working.

From national to region perspective the planned economies mainly in developing countries India has seen economic approach to planning, which translated into budget. Last 60 years of planning in India saw allocation of budget and scheme based approach. The market and government are differently approaching their issues, the planned era saw the govt indulgence in development without the specific spatial plans except in tribal areas, That also later shifted towards the allocation of funds to the departments and specific projects there on for the areas. The area specific planning i.e. spatial approach to plan is greatly missing.  Anyway I agree there needs to be specific plans for spatial areas depending on its nature. Thanks again for answering..

I would submit that a planning should be context sensitive and a continuing evaluative  process between  local and central authorities with identification of what short term choices are consistent with collective long term interests. Only then can a more valid approach to financial resource allocation be made. To do otherwise locks into decision making based on assumed foundations which may no longer have any salience for today or the future. Under any circumstances a challenging process, but worth the effort.

i will add here that spatial planning will not only make the proper and well defined use of country's resources but also enhance capacity of building blocks of economy

Spatial plans are sustainable solutions since its focussed on the people, resources and utilization strategies. The emphasis on the linkages between settlements, resource exchange and power of the communities are important for the designed or smart societies. The settlements which are now classed as urban or rural have no meaning since the idea for the spatial plan is to allow the local bodies to prepare plans in sync with regional or state authorities. The development concern for the nations must be addressed at the local levels. The national government must focus on broader policy goals like finance, defense, balance of trade, geo-political relations etc. The people should be center for such plans.