Petition Delivered: 1,241 Residents Call on Brent to Withdraw the Kingswood–Salusbury ETO Scheme

17 November 2025 – Brent Civic Centre

Earlier today, Sanjay Azim Nazerali presented a petition signed by 1,241 residents calling on Brent Council to withdraw the current Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) operating between Kingswood Avenue and Salusbury Road.

The petition states:

“We the undersigned petition the council to withdraw the latest ETO scheme running between Kingswood Avenue and Salusbury Road until a plan is presented with clear benefits that prioritise the health, safety, equality, prosperity and quality of life for the entire neighbourhood, based on majority community support, evidence-based planning, transparent decision-making, and value for money… The current ETO is a similarly unhelpful and divisive scheme, which unfairly prioritises a few streets while displacing traffic onto neighbouring streets — including Chamberlayne Road and Salusbury Road, where thousands of children go to school.”

This ePetition ran from 11/09/2025 to 05/11/2025 and has now finished.
Total signatures: 1241

This follows a previous petition of 1,401 residents objecting to the earlier QPHN proposals, which many felt was inaccurately represented in Council reporting as having “welcomed the scheme” — something that Sanjay described as “factually untrue” in his presentation.

🖥️ Watch the presentation

The session is now available via the Council’s webcast archive.
It begins at approximately 2:45 into the meeting:
🔗 https://brent.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/1024882

➡️ And Sanjay’s speech in full is included at the end of this post.

Key message to Cabinet:

“These ETOs have created deep and lasting division in our community. They have created a two–tier ward, in which the relief enjoyed by a few has created a commensurate level of pain for their neighbours… This thorn in our side is not going away.”
Sanjay Nazerali, Cabinet address


Governance Concerns Raised

Sanjay told Cabinet that trust has been damaged by:

  • A report that misrepresented residents’ views.
  • A formal complaint being handled by the same officer who authored the report — a process which he argued breaches Brent’s own complaints policy.
  • Ward councillors not responding when asked whether resident feedback had been accurately represented.

He stated:

“When asked to answer a simple question — ‘do you believe your constituents’ views were fairly represented?’ — there was a deafening silence from all of them.”


Ward Councillor Role: FOI Correspondence

Recent Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosures show that ward councillors were not merely observers of ETO development but participants in forming the early direction and proposals.

For example, in March and June 2022, Cllr Neil Nerva, Cllr Eleanor Southwood, and Cllr Stephen Crabb engaged directly with residents and officers regarding targeted restrictions around Summerfield and Dudley roads, including discussions of no-entry timed filters and trial schemes.

This correspondence shows councillors:

  • organising site visits at peak hours,
  • requesting exploration of timed no-entry measures, and
  • communicating with residents advocating for rat-run prevention.

This indicates that ward councillors, including Cllr Nerva, were active participants in shaping the approach, not commentators distancing themselves from decisions after the fact.

A leadership gap?

Despite this documented involvement, many residents report that Cllr Nerva has remained absent from community discussion spaces, including the major One Neighbourhood WhatsApp forum, where ETO impacts are debated daily. Residents have expressed disappointment that he has not provided visible leadership, updates, or a consistent explanation of his position.


Why Residents Say the ETO is Divisive

The petition argues that the scheme:

  • benefits a small cluster of streets while pushing congestion elsewhere;
  • increases morning traffic on Salusbury Road and Chamberlayne Road, along routes used by schoolchildren;
  • creates a sense of winners and losers, undermining neighbourhood cohesion.

Sanjay summarised:

“We now have a socially regressive policy that has eroded trust in the Council’s commitment to transparency… cancel this divisive and unfair ETO and develop holistic solutions that benefit the many, not the few.”


Council Response

Cllr Krupa Sheth, Cabinet Member, acknowledged the petition and stated that Brent will review:

  • monitoring data,
  • traffic surveys,
  • air quality evidence, and
  • 575+ community submissions.

What Happens Next?

Residents have asked Brent to:

  1. Remove the current ETO.
  2. Publish clear evidence of impact.
  3. Convene a neutral community-wide engagement process.
  4. Develop an approach anchored in equity, majority consent, and transparent governance.

Conclusion

This petition marks another major moment in a now years-long debate around traffic interventions in Queens Park. The scale of support reflects a community still seeking a plan that feels fair, evidence-based, and genuinely participatory.

What is clear is that the issue is not only about traffic, but about trust, representation, and the social fabric of the neighbourhood.

Concerns Mount Over Queen’s Park Area Healthy Neighbourhood Traffic Scheme Proposals

A wave of controversy has swept through Queen’s Park Ward (Kensal Rise and Queen’s Park area) this week following Brent Council’s launch of a consultation – quickly rebranded as a “survey” after resident backlash – regarding proposed traffic changes in just the Queen’s Park area.

The survey, for which the response deadline was also changed and extended to 6 December 2024, is being managed by MP Smarter Travel, the Council’s appointed consultants for this project.

The proposals aim to create a “healthy neighbourhood”, otherwise known as a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN), through various road closures, with implementation timings to be determined through public input. See project area in the following graphic.

The Council has put forward two options (Option A and Option B) for the scheme, both of which have been criticised as draconian in nature, and absent of evidence and data-driven decision making. Under either option, residents of Kensal Rise and local businesses would be prohibited from travelling through the Queen’s Park area at certain times of the day. Meanwhile, residents of the Queen’s Park area would retain unrestricted access to Kensal Rise at all times, creating what many see as a two-tier system of access.

Alternative Queen’s Park Ward-Wide Approach

The Kensal Rise Residents’ Association (KRRA) has advocated for a more comprehensive approach, previously submitting proposals to the Council and Councillors that would reduce traffic across the entire Queen’s Park ward. Following intensive lobbying by the KRRA and recent public backlash, the Council last week announced that funding has been found to explore “congestion reduction” measures for Chamberlayne Road, with investigations to begin in early January.

However, the KRRA warns that these proposed measures may prove inadequate. With Chamberlayne Road already operating well above capacity, implementing “congestion reduction” measures alone would be futile without addressing the fundamental issue of excessive traffic volumes.

Further, as a boundary road for the proposed LTN scheme, Chamberlayne Road’s existing traffic will most likely increase due to expected traffic displacement arising from the proposed road closures. However, the Council, who hasn’t undertaken an impact assessment to understand potential traffic displacement, says this will not happen, when evidence from similar schemes implemented elsewhere in London show otherwise.

Understanding the Context

The Council’s current proposal seeks to extend existing traffic restrictions to additional roads in the Queen’s Park area, reportedly to address traffic displacement from earlier traffic restrictions implemented on some roads around the park. However, this approach has drawn significant criticism from residents across the ward.

The Chamberlayne Road Puzzle

Perhaps most contentious is the notable absence of any proposals for Chamberlayne Road, despite compelling data showing it should be a priority:

– Highest collisions in the Queen’s Park Ward – 40 between 2020 and 2022

– Illegal air pollution levels, particularly affecting schools and Station Terrace residents

– Heavy traffic volumes, with 60% originating from outside Brent Borough

– Chronic issues with rat-running

Evidence vs Implementation

The KRRA, Kensal Rise residents and the local business community have expressed serious concerns about this oversight. The data presents a stark contrast: while Chamberlayne Road faces significant challenges, the Council’s focus has shifted to implementing a healthy neighbourhood scheme in the Queen’s Park area where for 99% of streets in the project coverage area:

– Air quality levels are already well below illegal limits

– Road collisions are minimal

– Traffic volumes are low

Community Division Concerns

This apparent disconnect between evidence and action has sparked intense debate across local WhatsApp groups, school gates, and street conversations. Many residents argue that this approach risks dividing the community and reinforcing perceptions of inequality within the Queen’s Park Ward, “A Ward of Two Halves”.

A Call for Evidence-Based Decision Making

As a ward funded by taxpayers’ money, decisions should be:

– Driven by data and evidence

– Transparent in their reasoning

– Aligned with values of fairness, equality, and unity

– Independent of socioeconomic influence

The growing concern is that current proposals may prioritise the voices of more privileged residents over evidence-based solutions that benefit the entire community. As this consultation process continues, residents are calling for a more equitable approach that addresses the ward’s most pressing traffic and safety issues based on clear data rather than social influence.

The Way Forward

The entire Queen’s Park ward, Chamberlayne and Salusbury roads in particular, urgently needs measures that will protect vulnerable road users – cyclists, pedestrians, and particularly schoolchildren – while creating a healthier environment and safer streets that serve the many, not just a select few.

Have Your Say.

1. **Complete Brent Council Survey by 6 December 2024** Note you have 4 options, including “Do Nothing”

https://forms.monday.com/forms/380da15880e467d9465c26e7bd7bc40d?r=use1

3. **If You Wish, Sign the Resident Led Petition Opposing the Scheme

https://bit.ly/QueensParkTrafficPetition

3. **Review Proposal Details and Map** 

 Proposed scheme / project area within purple boundary 

  https://www.brent.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/travel-and-transport/brent-healthy-neighbourhoods/queens-park-healthy-neighbourhood

4. **Watch Video on Two Options** 

Option A: https://bit.ly/QueensParkTrafficPetition

Option B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=kxRIifDOuN8&feature=youtu.be

5. **Join WhatsApp Group Conversation** 

https://chat.whatsapp.com/ByCZ6dsvSnUH9sX6V7GOwX

6. **Share Feedback** 

Email: kensalrisera@gmail.com

🚨 *Brent Council Updates Queen’s Park Area Healthy Area Neighbourhood Survey!* 🚨

Following widespread feedback, *Brent Council and its consultants* have made important updates:

📝 *New Survey Format*: Now, you can share detailed feedback in free-flow text. 

📅 *Extended Deadline: The survey deadline is now **6 December*. 

💡 *Already Submitted?* You can complete it again—your latest response will be counted as final.

This survey addresses proposals to restrict vehicles on certain Queen’s Park roads, with potential Penalty Notice Charges for those outside the project area – see map. *Note: With these Queen’s Park area proposals, there are no planned traffic reduction measures for Chamberlayne Road, the boundary road for the project area*

As Kensal Rise residents, consider the impact of Option A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=l_fAeGi4imY&feature=youtu.be); and Option B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=kxRIifDOuN8&feature=youtu.be), and remember, you have *4 choices* in the survey, including rejecting both proposals.

🔗 Complete the survey here: [survey link] (https://forms.monday.com/forms/380da15880e467d9465c26e7bd7bc40d?r=use1)

🗓️ *Deadline: 6 December* – make sure your voice is heard!

📢 *Please share this message with your friends and neighbours!*