Debate contribution: Public Petition: Stop the Mourne Mountain Gondola Project
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew McMurray
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Public Petition: Stop the Mourne Mountain Gondola Project
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4686421
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am here as an MLA for South Down, representing the Alliance Party, to present this petition to stop the Mourne Mountain gondola project. Currently, the number of signatures on the petition exceeds 6,000. It is an honour to present it to you in the Chamber. I am glad that some of that number who organised the petition are in the Public Gallery today, as well as my Alliance Party colleagues from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, who have consistently stood with those opposed to the project.
The material ask of the petition is to stop the Mourne Mountains gondola project and the associated visitor centre to be located at Thomas's Quarry on the side of Slieve Donard. The project concerns a gondola ride of no more than 1,300 m with a height of under 250 m. It includes the construction of a visitor centre in a special area of conservation and area of special scientific interest. Mr Speaker, I ask that the petition be passed to the Minister for the Economy, as two major bodies associated with the project fall within his remit, namely Tourism NI and the Department for the Economy. We hope to draw the Minister's attention to the feelings of local people and those who love and care for the upland environment, and their opposition to the proposal. We urge the Minister to exert his influence to prompt a rethink of the problematic elements of the project. Outside the Chamber, the petition is a barometer for Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to take into consideration when it next has to make a decision on the project. There is no shortage of reasons why we oppose the gondola. We have unfortunately ended up in a situation where there has been a lack of public consultation; where other, more sustainable uses of funding have been disregarded; where financial risk is involved; where there is a lack of economic viability; and where there is a threat to the local environment through the disruption of our area's vast and unique natural beauty. Many will know that Donard Park, up to the Glen river and on to the saddle between Slieve Donard and Slieve Commedagh, is one of the most iconic gateways into the Mournes. Constructing a gondola of industrial scale in such a wonderful natural environment will not augment the area; indeed, the opposite is true. In my time in elected politics, this has been one of the biggest issues raised with me by my constituents, who are opposed to the project. From the pub to the pew — literally — the general public have consistently let me know their views on the project, and, as the response to the petition suggests, it is not one of endorsement.
460 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.83 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.