Member's statement: Lough Moss Leisure Centre
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 27 April 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Lough Moss Leisure Centre
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5508142
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to echo some of the remarks that were made earlier by my constituency colleague and friend Kate Nicholl, who has just returned to the Chamber, about an urgent question that has been left waiting for far too long not only for the people of Carryduff but for the people of BT8 and Castlereagh South more broadly, and that is the failure to build a new leisure centre at Lough Moss. I am pleased to say that there was cross-party support for a petition that was launched by my colleague Councillor John Gallen. The petition calls for something that people in BT8 have not had for years, if not decades, and certainly not under the auspices of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council since it was formed, which is proper investment and focus on that area. A few years ago, the SDLP established that, despite contributing the largest total of rates by district electoral area to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, Castlereagh South has historically had the lowest level of investment. The people there have to put up with all the traffic that flows down to Forestside. It is a great shopping amenity, but the traffic and congestion that is created affects air quality for people all the way down the Saintfield Road from Carryduff to Newtownbreda. They would expect and deserve proper investment in amenities in their area, but they simply have not had that. The failure to invest in Lough Moss is another example of that. As was said earlier on, Lough Moss is overcrowded and simply not fit for purpose. I am sure that it was a great facility back in the 1990s. Recently, there has been investment in 3G pitches there, which are used by Carryduff Colts, which is a great soccer club, and Carryduff GAC. However, the leisure centre itself needs to be properly upgraded. As you will be well aware, Mr Speaker, it needs a pool. People who live in Carryduff and rely on public transport either have to get multiple buses into the centre of Belfast and out to Lisnasharragh or Olympia, or they have to get on a bus and go all the way to Downpatrick to get to a swimming pool. That is not good enough for people in BT8.
The SDLP have been saying for years that the people of Castlereagh South have been getting a raw deal from that council. I am afraid that others supported the vast investment in the replacement of Dundonald Ice Bowl. On its own terms, there is nothing wrong with that, but it means that there will be a lot less investment in other parts of Lisburn and Castlereagh. BT8 and Castlereagh South, once again, have been left without proper investment. It is an area where people pay really substantial rates. They make their home in that area, which has great community assets. I mentioned Carryduff Colts and Carryduff GAC, and there is Bredagh GAC and the Carryduff regeneration forum. Those are brilliant local community and sports groups, formed by people in the community, but they do not get the backing of the council in that area. The council needs to properly invest there and needs to start with a new leisure centre at Lough Moss, with a swimming pool and proper facilities for people in that area. While we are at it, let us also get proper investment in the public realm in Carryduff and more road safety measures, as well as, ideally, at some point, the Glider.
585 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: 0.06 (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).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.73 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:27 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.