Jim Allister rejects ‘pressure’ as campaign challenges his support for IFA National Football Centre
CGI design drawing showing aerial view of the proposed IFA National Football Centre outside Ballymena
Tuesday 15 September 2026
A campaign opposing the proposed location of the Irish FA’s National Football Centre in Galgorm has challenged North Antrim MP Jim Allister to subject the project to the same level of scrutiny he applied to Casement Park — prompting the MP to insist he will not be “pressurised or bullied” into adopting objectors’ position.
The intervention from the Right Facility, Wrong Location campaign follows a meeting between its representatives and Mr Allister, who has publicly supported the proposed development.
Campaign spokesperson Sarah Herbison said the group left the meeting concerned that, in its view, important details surrounding the project had not been sufficiently interrogated before political support was given.
At the heart of the latest dispute are questions over the proposed centre’s ownership and funding, how Galgorm was selected, community access, potential commercial benefits and the environmental and planning processes surrounding the development.
Mr Allister strongly rejected the suggestion that objectors should influence his position, saying they were entitled to pursue their case through the planning system but should not “browbeat public representatives” over what he described as a proposal of strategic importance to the area.
Campaign calls for Casement level scrutiny
Right Facility, Wrong Location campaign spokesperson Sarah Herbison with husband John
Speaking after the meeting, Mrs Herbison said:
“We are increasingly concerned at political support for the Irish FA’s proposed National Football Centre at Galgorm without, in our view, politicians demonstrating that they have properly interrogated the detail of what is actually being proposed.
“Last week, representatives of our campaign met Jim Allister MP and set out our concerns about the proposed development to him directly. We were surprised and concerned to find that much of the detail appeared not to be known to him, despite his public support for the proposal.
“Mr Allister has a well-earned reputation for interrogating major publicly-supported projects rigorously. He did exactly that in relation to Casement Park, on funding, on ownership, on cost transparency, on environmental risk, and on whether the project should proceed at all. We would ask him, and every other elected representative, to apply that standard here.”
The comparison with Casement Park is deliberate. Mr Allister was a prominent critic of the proposed public funding arrangements for the redevelopment of the west Belfast stadium and repeatedly questioned its cost, ownership and the case for taxpayer support.
The Galgorm campaign argues that comparable questions should be answered before politicians commit themselves to supporting the National Football Centre.
Seven questions campaign wants answered
Mrs Herbison set out a series of questions which she said elected representatives should be asking: who would own the facility and land; whether the proposed partnership and development arrangement is appropriate for a national facility; whether public money will be sought and what safeguards would apply; how Galgorm was selected and what alternatives were considered; what community access would actually be available; who could benefit commercially; and why a full Environmental Statement has not been required.
She said:
“These are not peripheral or technical points. They are a matter of public interest which should be asked and answered.
“We are asking for honesty about what is proposed, transparency about how it is to be funded and owned, and a fair and correct process that reaches its conclusion in the open. Political support should follow scrutiny, not come before it.”
It is important to distinguish between questions being raised by the campaign and established findings. The campaign’s questions do not themselves demonstrate wrongdoing in the proposed ownership, funding, site-selection or partnership arrangements, and the planning application remains subject to the statutory planning process.
Allister rejects pressure from objectors
North Antrim MP Jim Allister
Responding directly to the criticism, Mr Allister rejected the campaign’s argument that he should alter his position on the proposal.
The North Antrim MP told Love Ballymena:
“I am not answerable to vested interests. I am answerable to my electorate. Thus, I will not be pressurised or bullied by vested interests.
“Nor, am I the planning authority, nor answerable for it.
“Objectors have absolute rights to pursue their interests and probe the planning authorities through rigorous representations, but they should not try and browbeat public representatives into adopting their view on a planning proposal of strategic importance to the area.”
His response draws a distinction between his role as an elected representative and that of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council as the planning authority. It also makes clear that, despite the representations made to him, his support for the proposed National Football Centre has not been withdrawn.
Campaign says concerns go beyond location
Mrs Herbison said the campaign had commissioned independent specialists in ecology, noise, lighting, roads, flooding, contamination, heritage and planning at its own expense in an attempt to test the application and its potential impacts.
She said:
“We came to this in good faith and with a professional argument. We instructed independent specialists in ecology, noise, lighting, roads, flooding, contamination, heritage and planning, at our own expense, because we believed that a proposal of this scale deserved to be tested properly on the evidence, and because we assumed that if we asked serious questions, we would get serious answers.
“That is not what has happened. The more questions we ask, the more we are stonewalled. Time and again, what we have run into is not disagreement about the evidence, which we would accept and could argue on its merits, but information withheld, questions deflected, and a process that has already had to be conceded as unlawful once.”
The allegation that the campaign has been “stonewalled” represents Mrs Herbison’s characterisation of its experience. However, one significant element of the campaign’s wider criticism is established: Mid and East Antrim Borough Council has previously accepted that its 3 July 2026 Environmental Impact Assessment screening decision was unlawful and agreed to re-screen the application.
Council previously admitted unlawful screening decision
Aerial map showing location of proposed multi-million pound IFA National Football Centre
As previously reported by Love Ballymena, the council made that admission in a letter dated 25 August after Sarah and John Herbison threatened judicial review proceedings over its determination that the development did not require an Environmental Statement.
The council stated:
“The Council therefore accepts that the 3 July 2026 screening decision was unlawful.”
It said the problem was that the determination did not provide adequate and sufficient reasons and did not contain sufficient information to allow it to be checked that adequate screening had been carried out in accordance with the legislation.
The council consequently committed to re-screening the application, taking account of additional information received since 3 July, including later responses from Shared Environmental Service and its Environmental Health Department. The admission did not amount to a council finding that a full Environmental Statement is required; that question is to be determined through the fresh screening exercise.
Mrs Herbison said the campaign remained concerned about the timetable, claiming it had not been given a date for the re-screening or an undertaking that the application would not progress in the meantime.
Further questions over environmental process
The campaign also claims that the reasons contained in the July 2026 screening determination were the same as those used in an earlier July 2025 determination, before the current planning application and associated technical reports were submitted and before statutory consultees responded.
Mrs Herbison said the campaign could not reconcile that with what she described as a council assurance that it had “far more information than would normally be available for a screening”.
She also pointed to the position taken by consultants working for the applicant in 2025, which the campaign says concluded that the proposal constituted development requiring environmental impact assessment, while subsequent council screening decisions reached a different conclusion.
The fact that consultants and the planning authority may reach different positions does not by itself establish that an Environmental Statement is legally required. That is precisely the issue the council must now reconsider through its fresh statutory screening exercise.
NI Water concerns remain part of planning process
The campaign also highlighted outstanding consultation issues, including NI Water’s recommendation of refusal on wastewater capacity grounds.
NI Water has previously advised that although there is capacity at the receiving wastewater treatment works, the downstream sewerage network is constrained by an overloaded sewer. Wastewater and Water Impact Assessments have been progressing, and NI Water has indicated that its position could be reconsidered if an acceptable engineering solution is agreed.
That distinction is significant: the recommendation represents an unresolved planning issue rather than a final determination that the development cannot proceed.
Mrs Herbison also said the campaign had submitted Freedom of Information requests to the Department for Communities seeking information about how the project would be funded and how the Galgorm site was selected, and said both requests were refused on cost grounds.
The campaign further raised concerns about the council’s decision not to make a Tree Preservation Order covering mature avenue trees at the proposed entrance and its handling of legal representations submitted by objectors.
Mrs Herbison said:
“None of that is a matter of taste, or landscape, or where anybody would prefer a football pitch to go. It goes to whether this application is being handled openly and in accordance with due process.”
What the Irish FA wants to build
The Irish FA is seeking planning permission for a major National Football Centre on approximately 22 hectares of land around 125 Fenaghy Road, between Galgorm and Cullybackey.
The plans comprise six football pitches — five outdoor and one indoor — including three hybrid and three artificial surfaces. Three would have floodlights and one would operate as a community pitch.
The proposal also includes spectator stands, a two-storey multi-purpose building containing training, changing, medical, catering, administration and media facilities, a community pitch building, internal roads, car parking, lighting, fencing, landscaping and new accesses from Fenaghy Road.
The Irish FA has previously described the project as a once-in-a-generation investment which could provide a permanent home for Northern Ireland’s national teams while supporting grassroots football, youth development and community engagement. It has also said it is committed to listening to stakeholders and, where possible, addressing and mitigating concerns as the project progresses.
The proposal has attracted both significant support and opposition locally, with supporters pointing to potential sporting, community and economic benefits while opponents maintain that the issue is not whether Northern Ireland should have a National Football Centre, but whether the Galgorm site is the appropriate place for it.
The latest exchange brings another dimension to that debate. Alongside the technical planning arguments now being considered by the council, the campaign is asking elected representatives who support the project to demonstrate how closely they have scrutinised its funding, ownership, environmental implications and site-selection process. Mr Allister’s response makes equally clear that he does not accept that those objections provide grounds for him to abandon his support.
With the council still required to make a fresh Environmental Impact Assessment screening determination, some of the most consequential questions surrounding the application remain unresolved.
The planning process — rather than either political support or campaign opposition — will ultimately have to test the proposal against the relevant planning and environmental requirements.
