Traffic information can pass through several revisions before the consultant prepares an air quality assessment. Keep the transport inputs, development description and assessment scenarios connected. A coordinated information register helps the transport specialist and air quality consultant identify which figures belong together and where an assumption still needs confirmation.
Describe the proposal and decision stage
Provide the current development layout, land uses and application reference where available. Explain whether the team is reviewing feasibility, a submission or a revised proposal. Identify the transport specialist responsible for the relevant inputs and the air quality consultant receiving them.
Send the available authority correspondence or agreed assessment scope. Local context can influence what is needed; do not assume that every development requires identical modelling or that one traffic total answers all the assessment questions.
Keep scenarios and data sources traceable
Ask the transport author to identify the scenarios, years, network references and assumptions associated with each supplied dataset. Keep the source and revision date with the file. Also, check that the revised transport note matches the assessment input set.
Where an input is provisional or unavailable, record the gap and the person responsible for resolving it. The air quality consultant should decide how the information affects their assessment, rather than the coordinator inserting an unreviewed substitute.
Review changes across both disciplines
When the layout, land use or transport assumptions change, describe the difference and send it to the relevant specialists. Ask which inputs or assessment documents need a response. Keep the resulting explanation with the current issue register.
Government air quality planning guidance provides the wider policy context. This coordination checklist does not supply traffic estimates, model settings, pollutant thresholds or a conclusion about the proposal’s acceptability. Those matters require the appropriate specialist scope and evidence.
Information register
| Input group | Coordination question |
|---|---|
| Development | Which layout and land-use revision does the assessment cover? |
| Traffic | Who prepared the data and which scenarios apply? |
| Assumptions | Which items remain provisional? |
| Change | Which changes need specialist review? |
A practical example
Illustrative example: The transport team revises a scenario after the layout changes. The coordinator records the new file and asks the air quality consultant whether their assessment inputs need updating. The authors can then issue both reports with a clear account of the information they used.
Before the next issue
- Identify the development revision.
- Record input authors and sources.
- Scenarios have clear labels.
- Data gaps have owners.
- Share revised assumptions across disciplines.
For the relevant specialist scope, see ACP’s specialist assessment service.
Professional context: Government air quality planning guidance.
To discuss the project information or review scope, contact ACP with the current proposal and the specific question that needs resolving.