City Centre Business Growth Scheme

Grant Assessment Scoring Guidance

Score Criteria
1.0 / Project Description
Panel members will be reviewing how the proposed project will be delivered.
They will be measuring that all applications meet the eligibility criteria and fulfil the objectives of the City Centre Business Growth Scheme.
Applicants will need to demonstrate relevant business experience and ability to deliver the proposed project including providing supporting information of theapplicant’s financial contribution towards the proposed project.
2.0 / Market Potential & Business Model
Panel members will be looking for evidence to demonstrate how the project addresses the priorities and eligibility criteria set out in the CCBGS guidance notes.
Applicants will need to demonstrate that the project has real market potential and a sound business model.
3.0 / Project timetable
Appraisers will be looking for a clear timetable coveringthe project cycle including start date, expected completion date, planning consents, building control approval and recruitment dates.
4.0 / Project costs
Appraisers will be taking into account not only the costs of the project, but that they are reasonable and represent good value, based on the advice & information provided by the Council’s Quantity Surveyor.
5.0 / Outputs
Panel members will be looking at what outputs the project will deliver including;
-Commercial space brought back into use
-Listed buildings brought back into use
-Number of full time equivalent jobs to be created
-Contribution to the economic and commercial diversity of the city centre
-Key sector business
-Work with the Council and partners to maximise local impact
Priority Streets outputs
  • Aesthetics of the physical improvements.
  • How it adds to the distinctiveness of the City Centre
  • How it improves the offer for workers, residents and visitors

6.0 / Project Management & Governance
Panel Members will be looking for evidence that the applicant can clearly demonstrate capacity to deliver the project in line with funding requirements and within the timetable that the applicant has set out.
7.0 / Intervention Rate
Panel members will decide the intervention rate to be applied for the project depending on the outputs & objectives achieved.
Score / Meaning
1 / Unacceptable response:
  • none provided
  • demonstrating a significant misunderstanding of the Scheme
  • not meeting the criteria even to a minimum extent

2 / Weak response:
  • meeting certain criteria to a minimum extent but fails in others
  • little evidence of ability to meet or deliver to the proposed criteria

3 / Fair response as:
  • meeting the majority but not all aspects of the criteria
  • adequate evidence of ability to meet or deliver to the proposed criteria

4 / Good response:
  • meeting all aspects of the criteria
  • comprehensive, clear proposal demonstrating a good understanding of the criteria
  • clear evidence of ability to meet or deliver to the proposed criteria

5 / Response which exceeds criteria:
  • Materially exceeding the criteria, through a creative or innovative response or where additional ‘added value’ areas have been identified
  • clear evidence of ability to exceed the proposed criteria