Debate contribution: Public Petition: Knockbreda Road Crossing
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Public Petition: Knockbreda Road Crossing
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5452863
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am delighted to present this petition to the Assembly on behalf of the people of Rosetta, Wynchurch and that wider part of south-east Belfast. They have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress in installing a pedestrian crossing at the Knockbreda Road, which, as well as improving safety for the many families who live there, would allow the back gate into Cherryvale park to be opened. I am delighted that 642 people have signed our petition, which shows the strength of feeling locally. Since I became an MLA, I have championed improved road safety, better connectivity and more access to green spaces. This crossing would achieve all three of those things, as well as the opening of the back gate into Cherryvale park. Despite those benefits, and despite support from Belfast City Council, including from local councillors from multiple parties, the Department for Infrastructure has been dragging its feet. It commissioned yet another consultation last year, the findings of which are yet to be published. DFI has spent £17,000 on the project thus far. I and my colleagues Claire Hanna MP and Councillor Séamas de Faoite have been working for years to ensure the delivery of the crossing as part of a wider package that also included the crossing that was successfully delivered on the Ravenhill Road. Our petition reads as follows:
"Dear Liz Kimmins MLA, Minister for Infrastructure I am writing to you in relation to the proposed pedestrian crossing at Knockbreda Road. As you may know the crossing is not only required for road safety in the Rosetta area, but also to unlock the opening of the rear entrance of Cherryvale Playing Fields. In the five years since this crossing was first proposed there have been two consultations of residents in the area. Your Department received the data from the most recent consultation in May 2025. As a resident passionate about seeing the delivery of the crossing I am asking that you publish the result of that consultation and outline a clear timeline for the project up to the installation of the crossing."
I hope that the Minister will listen to residents, publish the consultation results, outline a clear timeline for delivery and get on with finally delivering the Knockbreda Road crossing, which will unlock the opening of the back entrance into Cherryvale park, a treasured community asset, particularly for families. The people of Rosetta have waited long enough: let us get this done.
408 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: 0.02 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| 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 15:03 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.