Brent Council’s Queen’s Park Traffic Scheme Divides Residents

Key Points

• Brent Council implemented an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) in Queen’s Park aimed at restricting car access during peak hours.
• The initial ETO expired in April 2025 but was quickly replaced by a new order with reduced enforcement hours.
• The scheme has caused significant division in the community, splitting residents into supporters who enjoy less traffic and opponents who face increased congestion.
• A petition with 1,251 signatures, following a previous one of 1,400 signatures, demands the council cancel the current traffic restrictions.
• Sanjay Nazarali criticised the council for poor governance and accused Queen’s Park ward councillors of remaining silent on residents’ concerns.
• Councillor Neil Nerva defended the scheme, describing it as experimental and emphasising ongoing data collection to inform future decisions.
• Brent Council Leader, Councillor Muhammed Butt, affirmed residents’ voices will be heard, noting flexibility in adjusting or removing traffic restrictions.
• Supporters argue the scheme reduces rat-running and improves safety for vulnerable road users.
• Cabinet Member for Public Realm, Councillor Krupa Sheth, highlighted extensive community engagement and said decisions will be data-driven.

What is the controversy surrounding the traffic measures in Queen’s Park?

The introduction of an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) by Brent Council in the Queen’s Park area of North West London has sparked a prolonged and bitter community dispute. As reported by Sanjay Nazarali during the Brent Council Cabinet meeting on November 17, the scheme has caused “deep and lasting division” among residents. Originally proposed in 2020 but dropped temporarily, the traffic measures were reintroduced in 2023 as part of a series of local traffic restrictions trialled by the council.

Nazarali described the impact as creating a “two tier ward,” whereby some residents enjoy relief from traffic while others suffer increased congestion on neighbouring roads. The scheme restricts car access on certain roads during specified hours, with the latest order limiting car usage between Kingswood Avenue and Salisbury Road from 7.30am to 9am.

What are the main arguments of supporters and opponents of the scheme?

Opponents of the ETO, as presented by Mr Nazarali to the Cabinet, argue the measures have worsened traffic conditions on boundary roads. They claim the council “has not listened to this pain.” Around 1,251 residents have signed a petition demanding that the council cancel the current ETO. This petition follows a previous one that had garnered 1,400 signatures, indicating persistent community resistance.

Conversely, supporters believe the traffic reduction plan benefits residents by preventing rat-running—the practice of drivers cutting through residential streets to avoid main road congestion. Marina, a local resident quoted by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), stated the scheme offers “a reprieve from constant traffic” during weekday mornings, already scaled back from three hours to 1.5 hours to address complaints.

Supporters also highlight positive feedback regarding the measures’ effect on cyclists, children walking to school, and elderly residents. They believe the scheme prioritises the rights of residents over drivers and reduces potentially dangerous traffic volumes in residential areas.

How did Brent Council respond to the community concerns?

At the November 17 Cabinet meeting, Councillor Neil Nerva, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Public Health and Leisure and the Queen’s Park ward councillor, reaffirmed that the ETOs are, by definition, “experimental.” He emphasised the council’s challenge in balancing residents’ expectations and highlighted current efforts to monitor traffic closely, including the recent deployment of traffic counters.

Mr Nerva said:

“When we go big, it’s very difficult to actually resolve issues across an area, and when we go small, it’s sometimes considered too micro, and that people say that there is impact outside that area.”

He also emphasised that the original traffic orders came from residents and reaffirmed the council’s duty to listen and adapt.

Further, Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement, Councillor Krupa Sheth, noted the council received about 575 emails and submissions concerning the ETOs. She said officers will carefully review all feedback alongside data from traffic surveys and air quality studies before making future recommendations.

What are the allegations of poor governance made by community representatives?

Sanjay Nazarali expressed deep frustration with the council’s handling of the issue. He disputed a council report’s claim that the initial 1,400 petitioners “welcomed the scheme,” stating this was “factually untrue.” After contesting the report, Nazarali revealed he was “shocked” to learn that the officer investigating the complaint was the same one who authored the original report. He called this “unacceptable governance” and said it contravened Brent’s complaints policy. The matter was escalated to Brent Council Leader, Councillor Muhammed Butt.

Additionally, Nazarali criticised Queen’s Park ward councillors for what he described as “deafening silence” when asked if constituents had been fairly represented. He urged the council to cancel the “divisive and unfair ETO,” warning it is “destroying the community.”

How did Brent Council leadership address these concerns?

Councillor Muhammed Butt responded by affirming his willingness to ensure residents’ voices are acknowledged:

“I am more than happy to allow residents to come in and to make sure that their voice is heard and also to take into account the concerns that you’ve raised as well.”

He echoed Councillor Nerva’s sentiments that the traffic restrictions could be adjusted or removed:

“Things can go up, things can go down. Things can also be taken away.”

Despite the tensions, the council appears committed to using ongoing traffic data and community feedback to guide decisions.

What are the broader community impacts of the traffic scheme?

The hyper-local traffic scheme was intended to reduce traffic through residential streets, particularly during early mornings, to improve quality of life and safety. However, the scheme’s uneven impact has exacerbated tensions between residents living on roads experiencing relief and those burdened by extra traffic pushed to perimeter routes.

As per statements from both supporters and opponents, this controversy goes beyond traffic to touch on community cohesion and trust in local governance.

The dispute remains unresolved with both sides holding firm positions. Residents, petitioners, and councillors await the results of further data collection and officers’ recommendations to determine the future of the Queen’s Park traffic restrictions.