Planning and Environmental Management PLAN30081
Planning and Environmental Management
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
Planning and Environmental Management
PLAN30081
Assessment Brief
PLAN30081 Urban Theory, Planning Theory and Professional Values (20 credits)
Assessment Details
This module is assessed by two essays. The first is weighted at 35% and the second is weighted at
65% of the total module mark.
Students are expected to critically engage with their chosen question. You will be expected to
develop a coherent argument that is rooted in the critical literature introduced throughout the
module – try to see these questions as linked to ideas raised across the different lectures and not
simply to a particular lecture. Time will be available to discuss your essay ideas during the seminar
programme.
See Blackboard for really useful links to advice on essay writing, referencing and so much more.
Submission
Please submit your assessments via Blackboard. I will open the link for submission two weeks before
the deadline. Do not put your name on your essay. Do put your student number at the start of the
essay or as footer.
Marking Criteria are appended to this assessment brief.
Word counts
Maximum word counts set by the assessors should not be exceeded. The word count includes any
footnotes and endnotes, quotations and tables. It does not include the bibliography. You must
include a word count on your first page. Failure to indicate the word count, or the provision of a
false word count, may lead to disciplinary action.
What are the penalties? Markers can use their discretion to take into account minor transgressions
of up to 10% within the existing marking criteria, which means that you can lose marks for not being
concise for instance. However, harsher penalties apply for more major transgressions.
• If you exceed the word count by between 10-50%, then your mark for that essay will be capped
at a maximum of 50%.
2
• Work exceeding the word count by 50% will be viewed as not having met the requirements of
that part of the assessment. The essay will not be marked and a mark of zero will be recorded.
Assessment 1: Essay – 35% of marks. Deadline: Wednesday 23rd November
2022, before 2pm
The first assessment requires an essay of 1,000 words maximum (excluding bibliography and title of
essay).
Student should choose one of the following essay questions to answer:
2. Discuss whether you think planning is actually necessary for fair societies, sustainable futures and
efficient markets.
3. Critically discuss the contribution of communicative planning to planning practice.
4. Critically discuss the relevance of ideas about postpolitics for the way in which we manage future
urban development.
Assessment 2: Essay – 65% of marks. Deadline: Wednesday 25th January
2023, before 2pm
The second assessment requires an essay of 1,500 words maximum (excluding bibliography and title
of essay).
Choose one of the following essay questions to answer:
1. Which theoretical debates best help us to understand the evolution of English planning since
2010? You can focus on either the theories that justify the government’s changes or those which
critique it, or both.
2. Critically discuss the strengths and weaknesses of work on developing a Greater Manchester
Spatial Framework in relation to one or more planning theories or urban theories.
3. Critically discuss the emergence of New Urbanism ideas, reflecting in your response on the
implications for countries outside North America.
4. On paper, the pursuit of sustainable development remains a cornerstone of the English planning
system. Drawing on debates in planning theory, urban theory and /or environmental theory,
critically discuss whether we can be proud of planning’s role in supporting sustainable
development, reflecting on the period since 2004 when this goal was declared to be the statutory
purpose of planning.
3
Marking Criteria
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT
Department of Planning & Environmental Management
Undergraduate Assessment Criteria
Essays, Exams and Project Work for Years 1-3
The four main categories of criteria are:
1. Breadth & depth of knowledge and understanding
2. Synthesis and critical analysis
3. Structure, style and argumentation
4. Transferable skills
Please note that the overall mark is NOT derived from a notional average of the levels achieved for each of the criteria.
Class Mark
90
-1
0
0
Exceptional First class
Exceptional work of the highest quality attaining all leaning outcomes of the unit, all criteria
of assessment and displaying significant originality and/or deep insight.
1. Outstanding answer with no significant omissions. Excellent breadth and depth of
understanding of context for the question and addresses wider issues and
interrelationships. Shows significant innovation and/or originality.
2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) to very good effect showing
very advanced knowledge and are highly relevant to the question, very substantial and of
excellent quality, from extensive sources covering principles, techniques, evidence and
theories beyond the module lectures/core textbooks, with outstanding critical analysis and
insight and very effective integration with own ideas.
3. Excellent structure/organisation expressing clarity and originality. Highly relevant, logical
and well-focussed progression of argument. Situates analysis very effectively within current
academic and/or policy debates.
4. Excellent writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly
communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references
sources in line with your student handbook. Excellent presentation skills including use of IT
databases and other resources.
Upper-
range
first
100
Upper-
range
first
95
Upper-
range
first
92
80
-8
9
Outstanding First class
Outstanding work of the highest quality, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge, excellent
critical analysis and/or originality, high level of accuracy, relevance, presentation and
appropriate skills.
1. Excellent answer with no significant omissions. Excellent breadth and depth of
understanding of context for the question, key issues and interrelationships. Shows some
ambitious and perceptive use of innovation in methods and thinking.
2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) to very good effect and are
highly relevant to the question, substantial and of very good quality data and/or literature,
from a wide range of sources beyond the module lectures/core textbooks, with excellent
critical analysis and very good integration with own ideas.
3. Very high level structure/organisation. Very well focussed/relevant, logical, coherent and
convincing argument throughout. Situates analysis effectively within current academic
and/or policy debates.
4. Excellent writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly
communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references
sources in line with your student handbook. Excellent presentation skills including use of IT
databases and other resources.
Mid-
range
first
88
Mid-
range
first
85
Mid-
range
first
82
4
Class Mark
70
-7
9
First class
Excellent work of high quality, demonstrating extensive knowledge, very good critical
analysis, high level of accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills.
1. Very good answer with no significant omissions. Very good understanding of context for the
question, key issues and interrelationships. Shows good independent thinking or use of very
good methods.
2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) which are highly relevant to
the question, substantial and of good quality, from a range of reading beyond the module
lectures/core textbooks, with good critical analysis and integration with of original thought.
Further and wide ranging evidence could have been incorporated.
3. Very good structure and argumentation. Well focused showing considerable analytical
skills, relevant and coherent argument throughout. Very good awareness of relevant
academic and/or policy debates but opportunities to improve the balance of the arguments
presented.
4. Very good writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly
communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references
sources in line with your student handbook. Excellent presentation skills including use of IT
databases and other resources.
Lower-
range
first
78
Lower-
range
first
75
Lower-
range
first
72
60
-6
9
Upper Second class
High quality work, demonstrating very good knowledge and understanding, good critical
analysis, accuracy, relevance, presentation and understanding.
1. Good coverage of question and sound demonstration of the topic, but may have some
omissions. Broad understanding of context for the question, key issues and
interrelationships. Shows some independent thinking and an appreciation of application of
methods.
2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy) which are generally of good
quality, perhaps with some reading from beyond the module lectures/core textbooks, with
some critical analysis and integration with own ideas. Further and wide ranging evidence
could have been incorporated
3. Comprehensive structure, organisation and argumentation skills. Generally
focused/relevant and coherent argument in most sections. Good awareness of relevant
academic and/or policy debates but greater depth of analysis could have been included.
4. Good writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly
communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references
sources in line with your student handbook. Good presentation skills including use of IT
databases and other resources.
2.1
68
2.1
65
2.1
62
Essays that do not engage with material beyond that in module lectures / workshops / fieldtrips / key texts
and do not follow referencing guidelines outlined in the student handbook can only get a maximum 59%.
50
-5
9
Lower Second class
Competent/good and generally accurate work, demonstrating some relevant knowledge and
breadth, and sound understanding though undeveloped with limited critical reasoning.
1. Fair answer to question, with some omissions. Shows reasonable understanding of the
issues, principles, theories, evidence and techniques, perhaps with some
confusion/inaccuracies. Mainly derivative from module material, lacks evidence of
independent thought/research.
2. Identifies and uses a range of materials (academic and policy), but not substantial or
restricted to module lectures/core textbooks or of poor quality, with some critical analysis,
but mainly descriptive and lacks analytical depth.
2.2
58
2.2
55
5
Class Mark
3. Fair structure and coherent argumentation, but argument may lack focus/depth in some
sections. Reasonable awareness of relevant academic and/or policy debates, but with some
gaps or minor inaccuracies. Further critical analysis and evidence of independent reading
and thought could be incorporated.
4. Reasonable writing style and accurate grammar and spelling. Accurately and clearly
communicates key points very effectively with no significant errors. Consistently references
sources in line with your student handbook. Fair presentation skills including use of IT
databases and other resources.
2.2
52
40
-4
9
Third Class
Work of sufficient though limited quality, demonstrating some relevant knowledge and fair
understanding with possible errors and omissions.
1. Basic or simple answer to question lacking detail, depth and with significant omissions.
Superficial understanding of the issues and some confusion/inaccuracies. Regurgitates
taught or given material with no evidence of independent thought/research.
2. Range and use of material (academic and policy) is lacking or not relevant to the question or
of poor quality. Mostly descriptive with lack of a substantive critical analysis.
3. Weak structure and argumentation. Argument may lack focus/relevance, evidence and
coherence in many sections. Limited engagement with relevant academic and/or policy
debates, either dated, with gaps, or too many inaccuracies with a lack of balance discussion.
4. Writing style and grammar and spelling may be poor, with frequent errors. Inconsistently
and/or incompletely references sources, not in line with your student handbook. May use
some inappropriate presentation skills including the poor use of IT databases and other
resources.
3
48
3
45
3
42
Pass mark
30
-3
9
Compensatory Fail
Work below the standard required for an honours degree. There may be some evidence of
basic understanding and/or achievement but is insufficient with errors or other inadequacies.
1. Partial answer to question, with major omissions. Weak understanding of the issues,
theories, principles, techniques and evidence, and considerable confusion/inaccuracies.
Regurgitates taught or given material with no evidence of independent thought/research.
2. Range and use of material (academic and policy) are lacking or not relevant to the question
or of very poor quality. Uncritical and descriptive, with some sections being derivative of
other sources lacking in originality or critical analysis.
3. Minimal understanding of structure and argumentation. Argument is poorly
focused/irrelevant and/or incoherent/confused in many sections including unsubstantiated
arguments/evidence.
4. Shows problems in writing style and grammar and spelling may be poor, with frequent
errors. Inconsistently and/or incompletely references sources, not in line with your student
handbook. Uses inappropriate presentation skills including the poor use of IT databases and
other resources.