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.