The first assessment (Site finding) requires students to assume that you have a client which is a medium sized property company, they have instructed you to find a development for an investment opportunity - Custom Essay Writing Services for Students Worldwide

Development Project

Coursework 1: Site Finding

Defer/Refer, 2023/2024

Assessment Brief

Defer/Refer 2024

The Assessment

The first assessment (Site finding) requires students to assume that you have a client which is a medium sized property company, they have instructed you to find a development for an investment opportunity within a 75-mile radius of the City of London. This assessment will develop independent and autonomous learning, critical and analytical thinking skills and promote knowledge and understanding of the subject within the constraints of the industry context.

The coursework requires you to produce a written report (2000 words), It has a weighting of 25% towards your final module mark.

Key elements of the project will require in-depth research and proposals.

You will need to locate two suitable sites for a development, e.g. greenfield, brownfield or part of a refurbishment project located within a 75 mile radius of the City of London.

The minimum size of a site is 1.5 acres, and the maximum size of the site is 5 acres.

Choose two suitable sites.
Once you have selected the sites you will need to consider the type of development for your proposals.
You will be required to familiarise yourself with the site and local environment.
Once you have selected your sites you will need to conduct detailed research to establish detail about it, including:

Its location,
The total area of the site
Orientation of the site
The local environmental

Through your research you will need to arrive at detailed, sensible, executable proposals as follow: –

Site details, sketch design layouts, advice in relation to towards improving sustainability of the selected sites and proposed development and the rationale behind proposals to develop the site.
The report needs to demonstrate that your proposals would work with the site and location, and the benefits they would provide to enhance the local economy
The development proposals need to be fully compatible with legislation.

Your report is to be presented with the following supporting information (as a minimum):-

A title page.

Do NOT include your name or student number within the file name or anywhere within your submission. The submission will be subject to anonymous marking. Having logged into Turn-it-in on Blackboard, the system will record your details anonymously and tutors will only see your name after the entire submission has been assessed and provisional marks have been released to all students at the same time.”

Contents page.
A clear introduction setting out the constraints brought about by the following:
1. the sites and locations
2. The type of development that you propose
Proposals and rationale behind your selected site including demonstrating how they are compatible with the local environment.
The report should be professionally presented, organised in a logical manner. It should be easy to follow and to identify the main points.
The graphic material should add value, not confuse or have a neutral effect.
A conclusion, providing a clear summary of your proposals.
The text is to be written with correct spelling, grammar and punctuation.
The content is to be fully cited and referenced using the Harvard system.

Assessment criteria

The assessment criteria and weightings show you what is important in the assessment and how marks are shared across each criterion. When you are completing your assessment remember you need to fulfil the brief and the assessment criteria below. At the end of this document, we have provided you a more detailed marking grid, which describes both the expectation for each criterion and how marks would be awarded based upon performance.

Criterion	Weighting
Well written using plain English, the correct terminology, good spelling and grammar and a logical overall structure	15%
Demonstrate engagement with the course materials and evidence of wider reading and research in relation to locating suitable sites and application of this knowledge to the context of the development process.	40%
Critical thinking in the justification for the site selection and of the challenges and solutions within the 2000 word report.	35%
Fully reference your work as evidence of independent research, using sources appropriate for an academic essay. References set out in University of Westminster Harvard style.	10%

The Presentation and structure, (15%)

Well written using plain English, the correct terminology, good spelling and grammar and a logical overall structure.

Very poor report structure with illogical sections. Incorrect use of terminology. Report is poorly written with spelling and/or grammatical mistakes and requires proof reading.

Poor report structure, muddled and confused. Some terminology but not used convincingly. Report is poorly written with spelling and/or grammatical mistakes and requires proof reading.

Basic report structure. Writing style is not always clear and overly wordy. Some terminology used correctly. Standard of proofreading needs improving, as report has a number of spelling and grammar errors.

Good presentation and logical structure of the report. Writing is mainly clear and terminology is accurate. Some better linking of sections needed. Good standard of proof reading but with some errors.

Very good presentation and structure of the report. Succinct but informative advice. Confident use of terminology. Fluent academic writing style. Very good standard of proof reading with very few errors.

Excellent presentation and structure of the report. Succinct but informative advice. Confident use of terminology. Fluent academic writing style. Very good standard of proof reading with very few errors.

/15

Evidence of research (40%)

Demonstrate engagement with the course materials and evidence of wider reading and research in relation to finding a site

No evidence of understanding the task and no evidence of engagement with the module’s learning materials. No background reading and research.

Only limited evidence of understanding the task and engagement with the module’s learning materials. No background reading and research evident beyond the lecture material.

Basic understanding of the task and evidence of engagement with the module materials, particularly those from the weekly lectures but some misinterpretation of the materials. No evidence of background reading.

Good understanding of the task and obvious engagement with the module materials, particularly those from the weekly lectures. Reasonable understanding of finding a site

Very good understanding of the task and strong engagement with the module materials, not only the weekly lectures but the recommended reading. Very good interpretation finding a site

Excellent understanding of the task, strong engagement with the all the course materials and beyond. Excellent and insightful interpretation of finding a site Discussions supported with good quality sources.

/40

Critical thinking (35%)

Critically review the principles of site selection, evaluating the contribution of a range of sites and development proposals.

No critical thinking and no meaningful advice given to the client.

Limited and/or muddled critical thinking about the relationship of sites and development proposals.

Basic critical thinking about the relationship of sites and development proposals.

Good critical thinking about the relationship of sites and development proposals.

Very good critical thinking, written in a flowing report style. Flowing discussion of the relationship of sites and development proposals.

Excellent critical thinking, written in a flowing report style. Flowing discussion of sites and development proposals.

/35

Referencing (10%)

Fully reference your work as evidence of independent research, using sources appropriate for an academic essay. References set out in University of Westminster Harvard style.

No references or very few, with no attempt to use the Harvard system.

Major mistakes in referencing or major references missing.

Minor mistakes or inconsistencies in referencing.

Appropriate referencing, minor mistakes and inconsistencies.