Wrightbus backs Irish FA’s Galgorm football centre as supporters outnumber objectors

CGI of the proposed new Irish FA National Football Centre at Galgorm

One of Ballymena’s biggest employers has thrown its weight behind plans for a major Irish FA National Football Centre at Galgorm, as the planning file shows around 110 representations supporting the development compared with 64 opposing it.

Wrightbus has formally backed the proposed centre at Fenaghy Road, arguing that an investment of this scale could increase visitor numbers, support businesses across hospitality, retail, transport and services, help safeguard existing employment and create new opportunities in the local economy.

The Ballymena manufacturer joins a broad coalition supporting the proposal, including Galgorm Resort, Ballymena Chamber of Commerce, McKeever Hotels, Ballymena United, Cullybackey Blues, sporting organisations, political representatives and seven local schools.

But the numerical advantage among representations does not determine the planning outcome. Behind the public debate are significant technical issues which remain unresolved, with NI Water currently recommending refusal, DfI Rivers seeking further drainage information and council Environmental Health identifying potential adverse impacts from noise and floodlighting.

It leaves planners weighing a proposal supporters believe could bring major sporting, economic and community benefits to the Ballymena area against concerns about infrastructure, neighbouring properties, the rural location and the future of a long-established riding school and disability riding service.

Wrightbus makes economic case for the centre

In its representation to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, Bamford Bus Company Ltd, trading as Wrightbus, describes the proposed National Football Centre as an opportunity to stimulate economic activity in Cullybackey and Ballymena.

The company points particularly to the pressure facing town centres and argues that major developments can help attract visitors and strengthen confidence in the area’s longer-term economic future.

Map showing proposed location of new Irish FA National Football Centre at Galgorm

Wrightbus states:

“The construction and ongoing operation of the Centre will represent a significant and ongoing investment in the district.”

It argues that increased year-round visitor numbers could benefit hospitality, retail, transport and service businesses, adding:

“This footfall will help safeguard existing jobs and create new opportunities, particularly within small and medium-sized enterprises.”

Wrightbus also backs the proposed community and grassroots football elements of the scheme, arguing that these could contribute to health, wellbeing and skills development.

Its intervention is significant because the case being made for the centre is increasingly extending beyond football itself, with a number of major local employers and business organisations arguing that the development could have a wider economic impact.

Businesses and sporting organisations add their support

Galgorm Resort, located beside the proposed development, has offered what it describes as its “unequivocal support”.

Colin Johnston, writing on behalf of the resort, said the centre could stimulate tourism, hospitality and international engagement while attracting teams and visitors from Ireland and further afield.

The resort says its Galgorm operations currently employ around 750 people, while the wider Galgorm Collection employs just under 1,500. It also points to substantial planned investment of its own in the area over the next decade.

McKeever Hotels, whose portfolio includes Ballymena’s Adair Arms Hotel, has similarly argued that increased visitors could support local businesses and employment.

Ballymena Chamber of Commerce and Industry is also supporting the application, making the case for economic activity, sporting development, community access and increased tourism.

Within football, support includes Ballymena United Football Club, Cullybackey Blues Football Club and the Northern Amateur Football League, while Randalstown Rugby Football Club and Netball Northern Ireland have also backed the development.

Ballymena United chairman Chris Selwood said the proposed centre would be a “tremendous asset for the area”, arguing that better facilities and sustained investment could increase participation and strengthen player development.

Seven local schools highlight opportunities for young people

Facilities of the proposed new Irish FA National Football Centre at Galgorm

A particularly significant strand of the support comes from local education, with Gracehill Primary School, Ballykeel Primary School, St Brigid’s Primary School, St Colmcille’s Primary School, Buick Memorial Primary School, Ballymena Academy and Slemish College all making representations in favour.

Their submissions focus less on the commercial argument and more on what having a national sporting facility locally could mean for children and young people.

Recurring themes include football’s role in developing confidence, teamwork, discipline and belonging, encouraging healthier lifestyles and giving young people positive opportunities outside the classroom.

Several also highlight the potential significance of having a major sporting facility close to home — giving pupils something tangible to aspire towards and demonstrating that pathways into high-level sport do not necessarily begin elsewhere.

The proposed centre’s intention to support both boys’ and girls’ football is specifically welcomed in the school representations, reflecting growing participation in girls’ sport.

St Colmcille’s Primary School principal Henry Walls said the development could provide inspiration and ambition for future generations while bringing lasting benefits for “local families, schools, sports clubs, and community organisations”.

The schools also welcome the community element of the plans, including access to high-quality sporting infrastructure beyond the elite national teams.

Taken together, their representations form an important part of the supporters’ case: that the proposal should be judged not simply as a headquarters for international football, but on the potential opportunities it could create for grassroots sport, schools and young people across the Ballymena area.

Political support crosses party lines

Political support crosses party lines

The project has also attracted considerable political backing.

North Antrim MP Jim Allister, North Antrim MLAs Paul Frew, Timothy Gaston and Jon Burrows, East Antrim MLA Stewart Dickson, Ballymena councillors William McCaughey and Philip Thompson, and former North Antrim MP Ian Paisley are among those who have submitted support.

Their representations make a number of overlapping arguments: that Northern Ireland needs a dedicated national training facility; that major sporting investment should not automatically be concentrated in Belfast; and that locating the centre near Ballymena could generate wider economic, tourism, health and community benefits.

North Antrim MLA Jon Burrows argues that the Galgorm location is well positioned for a national facility because of its proximity to transport networks, airports, Galgorm Resort and Ballymena Showgrounds.

He also places considerable emphasis on what could happen beyond elite football, pointing to the proposed community pitch, opportunities for local teams and Irish FA Foundation programmes, as well as coaching, education and training.

Mr Burrows said the development could create a pathway for male and female players while attracting additional visitors to the area and supporting the local economy. He described it as an opportunity to deliver “economic, social and wellbeing benefits” and said he was satisfied the site was suited to the scale and ambition of the proposal.

That view is echoed by Timothy Gaston MLA, who describes the proposal as a welcome move away from what he calls a “Belfast-first mentality”. He points to Belfast International Airport, Ballymena bus station and Cullybackey railway station when making the case for the location.

Mr Allister also supports the location and wider economic case, although his representation includes an important qualification:

“However, local residents’ interests must be acknowledged and accommodated.”

Former North Antrim MP Ian Paisley takes an especially firm position in favour of the site, arguing:

“I can find no credible planning or strategic objections that should outweigh the unique and strategic benefits of this proposal.”

Those statements are representations in support of the application rather than conclusions reached by the planning authority. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council must ultimately assess the proposal against planning policy and the technical evidence before it.

What exactly is being proposed?

The application, LA02/2026/0169/F, relates to land around 125 Fenaghy Road, bounded by Fenaghy Road to the south and the railway line to the north, between Galgorm and Cullybackey.

The plans comprise six football pitches — five outdoor and one indoor — with three hybrid and three artificial surfaces. Three pitches would have floodlights and one would be a community pitch.

Spectator facilities include an 1,100-seat stand and two 500-seat stands, alongside a two-storey multi-purpose building containing training, changing, medical, catering, administration and media facilities.

A community pitch building, photovoltaic panels, internal access roads, lighting, fencing, parking, landscaping and accesses from Fenaghy Road are also proposed.

Supporters envisage a permanent high-quality training base for Northern Ireland’s male and female national teams, alongside player development, coaching, education, grassroots programmes and community use.

However, the planning assessment has exposed several substantial issues which remain to be resolved.

NI Water currently recommends refusal

NI Water’s consultation response of 13 May carries an overall recommendation of refusal in the application’s present position.

Importantly, that does not mean NI Water has concluded the development can never proceed.

Its concerns centre on existing infrastructure and it says it may reconsider its recommendation if appropriate solutions are identified and agreed.

On wastewater, NI Water says there is capacity at the receiving wastewater treatment works, but identifies problems within the downstream sewer network.

It states:

“An assessment has indicated network capacity issues. This establishes significant risks of detrimental effect to the environment and detrimental impact on existing properties.”

NI Water identifies an overloaded downstream sewer and an Unsatisfactory Intermittent Discharge at Spencestown TPS, which discharges to the Braid River.

It consequently recommends that connections to the public sewerage system are currently curtailed.

There is a separate water-supply constraint. Although a public water main is within 20 metres of the development boundary, NI Water says network capacity issues create a risk of reduced pressure and potential water-supply outages for existing customers.

A Wastewater Impact Assessment and Water Impact Assessment — WWIA DS105535 and WIA DS105534 — are in progress.

NI Water says that once those assessments are completed, and subject to agreement to implement whatever solution they identify and further consultation, it may reconsider its refusal recommendation.

On-site wastewater plant is another possibility

The applicant’s Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment, prepared by Arup, acknowledges uncertainty surrounding foul sewage and has identified space for a possible private on-site wastewater treatment plant.

Shared Environmental Service (SES), which is carrying out assessment work on behalf of the council, says it needs either confirmation of an agreed Wastewater Impact Assessment and details of any engineering solution, or full information and drawings for the alternative treatment plant.

SES requires that information to progress its Habitats Regulations Assessment, examining whether the development could adversely affect protected European sites.

It has asked to be consulted again following substantive responses from NI Water and NIEA Water Management Unit.

Flooding and drainage questions remain

DfI Rivers has also examined the proposal.

Flood mapping indicates portions of the site lie within the predicted one-in-100-year fluvial floodplain when the latest allowance for climate change is included.

The planning authority has deemed the application to be an exception under the relevant floodplain policy, allowing the proposal to continue through assessment.

Arup subsequently produced a more detailed river model.

Proposed mitigation includes opening two sections of culverted watercourse and upgrading the existing culvert at another two locations.

According to DfI Rivers, these measures remove the modelled floodplain from the site but increase peak flow downstream, resulting in an approximately 71mm increase in in-channel water levels at a downstream road culvert.

The assessment says the resulting increase in flood extent is negligible because of the local topography and poses no additional risk to property.

On that particular modelling, Rivers said it had “no reason to doubt the technical findings” and accepted the logic of the assessment.

However, that is not the end of its assessment.

Rivers has requested further correspondence regarding storm-water discharge and drainage calculations covering the entire proposed network.

Until that is provided and fully assessed, it says the submitted assessment has not demonstrated that surface-water flood risk can be effectively controlled and mitigated, meaning policy FRD3 has not yet been satisfied.

Noise assessment identifies likely adverse impact

The council’s Environmental Health service has raised separate questions about operational noise.

The submitted assessment examined large-scale events, training activities and use of the community pitch.

Environmental Health notes predicted levels above 50dB LAeq at three receptors during large-scale events and at two during training scenarios, alongside increases above existing ambient and background noise levels.

Its conclusion is significant:

“Therefore these results show there is likely to be an adverse impact from noise on these receptors during these scenarios.”

Further clarification has been requested.

Environmental Health wants to establish whether the community pitch could operate simultaneously with training activities. If it can, it says a further assessment would be required to determine their cumulative noise impact.

It has also sought clarification over how many pitches were assumed to be active during training, whether activity in the indoor sports dome was included and whether modelling accounted for noise from footballs hitting fencing or hoardings.

Floodlighting could affect nearby properties

Artificial lighting has been assessed under five operating scenarios.

The assessment assumes artificial lighting would be switched off after 10pm.

Environmental Health says that, with mitigation, lighting associated with training scenarios and the sports dome is unlikely to exceed applicable pre-curfew limits.

Some match-day scenarios are different.

The modelling predicts that light reaching several windows could exceed the relevant limits during particular televised events.

Most of those windows are associated with the nearby Linen Merchants Residence, currently used as short-term tourist accommodation, although Environmental Health says one appears from the submitted plans to be on a separate third-party property.

The applicant proposes that televised events would be limited to a maximum of 12 occasions annually and that the professional pitches would be used under floodlights for no more than three sessions per week, each limited to 90 minutes.

Environmental Health is currently minded to recommend conditions controlling artificial lighting, but says the predictions demonstrate the potential for an impact on the amenity of two surrounding receptors during match-day scenarios.

Air quality and contaminated land findings more favourable

Other parts of Environmental Health’s assessment have produced more favourable conclusions for the applicant.

Investigations of ground conditions found the risks from contamination to human health, environmental receptors and site users during construction and operation to be negligible, with no remediation considered necessary.

Environmental Health agrees with that conclusion and is minded to recommend an appropriate planning condition.

It has similarly accepted the findings of the submitted Air Quality Impact Assessment, which concludes there would be no significant effects on local air quality as a result of the development, subject to appropriate controls.

Council decides full Environmental Statement is not required

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council has separately completed an Environmental Impact Assessment screening exercise.

Because of the nature and scale of the development, the council was required to determine whether the application constituted EIA development requiring a formal Environmental Statement.

The council concluded that it does not require the application to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

That determination should not be confused with a finding that the proposal has no environmental impacts.

Individual issues — including drainage, ecology, lighting, noise, water infrastructure and flood risk — continue to be considered through the normal planning and consultation process.

Opposition raises impact on riding school and disability service

Against the growing support is significant opposition from residents and neighbouring interests.

Among the most detailed objections are those submitted by Galgorm Parks Riding School and Mid-Antrim Riding for the Disabled Association, which has operated from the riding school for almost 40 years.

Riding school owner Sara Kyle says the business has operated for 45 years and argues that noise, floodlighting, traffic and activity associated with the proposed football centre would make its continued operation impossible.

Her objection makes an especially stark claim about what she believes closure would mean for some of her animals:

“This proposal will destroy my business and force the humane destruction of elderly horses and ponies that have served thousands of people over four decades.”

That is Ms Kyle’s assessment of the potential consequences and not an established outcome of the planning application.

She argues that horses can react unpredictably to sudden noise and that the riding school’s busiest periods — after school, evenings and Saturdays — could overlap with periods of football activity.

Her objection also argues that the proposal conflicts with planning policies protecting existing economic uses and directing major development towards appropriate locations.

RDA warns therapeutic riding could be lost

Mid-Antrim RDA chairman Lady Juliet Frazer has lodged a separate objection centred on the potential consequences for disabled children and adults.

The charity has provided therapeutic riding from Galgorm Parks for almost four decades and works closely with Castle Tower School in Ballymena.

Lady Frazer argues that the combination of trained horses, facilities and the quiet rural setting cannot simply be replicated elsewhere locally.

She states:

“This development, if approved, will result in the closure of Mid-Antrim RDA, ending nearly four decades of therapeutic riding services for disabled children and adults.”

Again, that is the RDA’s stated assessment of what would happen should the development proceed, rather than a finding made by the council.

The organisation says noise, lighting and increased activity could affect horses used for therapeutic work and argues that the consequences could include the loss of provision for Castle Tower pupils and other people with disabilities.

The RDA has called for the application to be refused and for the National Football Centre to be located instead on an urban site.

A planning debate with two very different visions

The arguments now before planners could scarcely be more different.

Supporters see the Fenaghy Road development as an opportunity to bring national sporting infrastructure, investment, visitors and greater football participation to the Ballymena area, with potential benefits for young people, schools, clubs, businesses and Northern Ireland’s national teams.

Opponents do not necessarily dispute the case for a National Football Centre itself. Their argument is principally about where it should be built, with concerns over the countryside location, roads, drainage, noise, floodlighting, environmental effects and the potential impact on existing neighbouring uses.

That distinction is reflected in the name adopted by the residents’ campaign opposing the application: Right Facility, Wrong Location.

110 supporting representations, 64 against

The public representation figures currently provide another important piece of context.

Of approximately 174 representations recorded against the application, around 110 are in support and 64 are objections.

The figures show greater recorded support than opposition, but they are not a public vote or referendum and do not determine whether planning permission should be granted.

Planning decisions are made on relevant planning considerations and policy, with the substance of representations potentially more important than their number.

The support nevertheless demonstrates that opposition to the proposal does not represent the only strand of local opinion.

Alongside Wrightbus and the seven schools, those backing the application include Galgorm Resort, McKeever Hotels, Ballymena Chamber of Commerce, Cullybackey Community Partnership, Ballymena United, Cullybackey Blues, Randalstown Rugby Club, Netball Northern Ireland and the Northern Amateur Football League, as well as a number of elected representatives.

Application remains under consideration

The National Football Centre has therefore reached an important but far from final stage.

There is substantial public and institutional support for what the project could deliver, and Wrightbus’s intervention strengthens the economic case being advanced by supporters.

At the same time, NI Water’s refusal recommendation remains an important outstanding hurdle, while drainage, wastewater, noise and lighting issues require further work or consideration.

Some concerns could potentially be addressed through revised technical solutions, mitigation or planning conditions; others form part of the wider judgement planners will eventually have to make about whether a national sporting facility of this scale is appropriate at Fenaghy Road.

Crucially, no final planning decision has yet been made.

Residents can continue to make representations on application LA02/2026/0169/F through the Northern Ireland Planning Portal up until determination.

The next significant developments will be the outcome of the outstanding water and wastewater assessments, responses to the further information sought by statutory consultees and, ultimately, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council’s determination of whether the potential benefits of the National Football Centre can be delivered at Galgorm while satisfactorily addressing the planning, infrastructure and amenity issues now identified.