public sector communitybiodiversity net gainmasterplanningregenerative designurban design
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Check which masterplans or public realm schemes reached consent and construction, and what changed on the ground: canopy cover, permeable area, biodiversity units, homes delivered.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Names built or consented schemes with measured ecological and social gains, and is candid about what the delivered version lost.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they run charrettes and co-design workshops with residents, ward councillors, landowners and ecology officers when a scheme threatens parking or existing land use.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes specific workshop formats, hostile sessions they chaired, and design changes traceable to community or officer input.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test working command of NPPF, local plan policy, mandatory biodiversity net gain, SuDS approval, Building for a Healthy Life and whole-life carbon assessment requirements.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites the statutory metric or policy test that shaped a scheme, including where regenerative ambition exceeded planning minimums.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Assess how they baseline and evidence claims: ecology surveys, urban heat and flood modelling, GIS overlays, post-occupancy monitoring, and what goes into a design and access statement.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Shows a measured baseline and follow-up data, distinguishing modelled projections from monitored outcomes without overstating regenerative claims.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
