Debate contribution: Infrastructure: Castlereagh South
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Infrastructure: Castlereagh South
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197815
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Kate, for securing the Adjournment debate. First, as a Member for East Belfast, I will respond to my colleague across the way. As a Linfield fan from east Belfast and someone who works closely with Glentoran who is speaking in a debate about South Belfast, I understand your care about where you nail your colours to the mast for GAA teams. Secondly, from an East Belfast point of view, I would say that the Ice Bowl is a regional facility that benefits many of the Member's constituents as well as others across Belfast who use the facility, so everyone will see that.
People in Dundonald will be surprised to hear that they are privileged, given that they cannot even get a household recycling centre from the council. A lot of the issues that have been talked about today are similar to the issues facing people in Dundonald, and I hope to give voice to them. I can do that only because of the work of my colleagues. If I am honest, I am giving voice to them — Councillor Brian Higginson and the office of Edwin Poots, who is precluded from speaking in the debate because of his role as Speaker — and leaning heavily on their knowledge of the area. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the continuing issue of underinvestment in infrastructure in Castlereagh South. It is not a new problem. For years, residents have watched significant housing growth in the area without seeing significant investment in roads, transport, community facilities and essential services to match it. That issue is familiar from areas of my constituency too. The Castlereagh South area, which covers Carryduff, Four Winds, Newtownbreda, Cairnshill and Bests Hill, has grown rapidly over the past decade, yet it remains an area where development has far outpaced delivery. Over the past 10 years, we have seen 1,200 new homes proposed or built across the area. Despite the scale of the growth, there is still no dedicated, council-owned community centre anywhere at the lower end of the DEA, and I think particularly of Newtownbreda, Cairnshill and Four Winds. Beyond Lough Moss leisure centre and the emerging Killynure community hub, residents in other parts of the constituency have little access to local or council-owned community space. Pitch and recreational space is also extremely limited. The Killynure pitch and community provision has been delayed unnecessarily, and the Cairnshill and Hydebank football pitches are in serious need of investment and improvement if they are to meet the demands of local clubs and youth organisations. At the same time, school spaces are stretched, and there is little planning for future growth. Play parks are welcome additions, but they have been funded largely by developers or through small council grants rather than through long-term investment strategies. We look at housing policy, but we also need to look at housing need. There are over 450 people on the social housing waiting list in Carryduff alone. That figure should serve as a wake-up call. Housing plans must include a stronger commitment to affordable and social housing provision and not just private development. With that private development and other development, however, there needs to be a focus on an overall master plan for the area. We have seen that in Dundonald, where developments grow the number of people living in an area and the pressure on services, often without oversight of what the overall area should look like. I have heard that those frustrations are shared elsewhere. With regard to the transport network, residents from across the DEA face daily gridlock on roads, such as along the Saintfield Road corridor, where traffic from new developments funnels into Belfast with limited alternatives. We acknowledge progress where it has happened. We welcome the upgrade of the Knockbracken junction and the resurfacing of parts of the Saintfield Road, but those represent only small steps in addressing a much bigger problem. Road improvements were promised more than a decade ago, when new housing was zoned for development, yet those promises have not been delivered on. The proposed Saintfield Road relief road to connect the A55 at Belvoir to Cairnshill remains a concept, with no planning work having been undertaken. That situation is not unique to Castlereagh South but reflects a wider pattern from Kilkeel to Saintfield, where development has outpaced infrastructure. The strain is visible on roads, schools and essential services. Every morning, traffic from expanding communities feeds into the Saintfield Road, choking local routes and adding to residents' frustration. Without proper forward planning and targeted investment, that pattern will continue, and South Belfast will remain an area that carries the burden of growth without feeling any of the benefits. If we are to be serious about connectivity, we need to have better public transport. Colleagues touched on that and talked about the need for enhanced bus services across the DEA and further into Carryduff in particular in order to give commuters real alternatives to the car. Public transport is a key part of the solution not only to congestion but to issues around sustainability and quality of life. The extension of Belfast Rapid Transit to Carryduff has been proposed, but we must recognise the issues raised by residents around that. Consultation with the local community will be key to any further proposals on it. We have the Glider in Dundonald, which Matthew touched on, but it is not an answer to all ills: opinion is divided.
In line with that, I record our support for the proposed Carryduff greenway that is being taken forward by the council. That is a worthwhile project that could greatly improve safety and encourage active travel. I call on the Department for Infrastructure to fully support that. I realise that I am coming towards the end of my time. I am glad to have been able to contribute to the debate, and, again, I thank colleagues for their work.
994 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: 0.07 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- Subject area: Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.10 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:35 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.