Note:This letter was sent to the Chief Executive of the Simon Community which expresses the collective concerns of local residents and does not make allegations against any individual. It is shared in the public interest especially for those that have signed the petition. We ask the public to continue to share the petition.
RE: Proposed Simon Community Accommodation at 210 Glen Road. Formal Community Objection, Safeguarding Concerns, and Request for Immediate Pause
Dear Chief Executive of Simon Community,
We write to you following on from the opening day on Tuesday 13 January, on behalf of the Coolnasilla Residents Group Committee, representing residents of Coolnasilla Gardens, Caffery Hill, Airfield Heights, Shaw’s Road, and the wider Glen Road area.
The majority of the residents do not want the hostel accommodation opening on the Glen Road. We would like ‘this’ letter formally addressed. This correspondence also serves as a formal notice of serious, unresolved, and evidence based community safeguarding concerns relating to the proposed opening of Simon Community accommodation at 210 Glen Road. It also constitutes a formal request for an immediate pause on any opening, pending independent review, full disclosure, and meaningful multi-agency engagement.
At the outset, we wish to state clearly and unambiguously: our community does not oppose support for people experiencing homelessness. We recognise the essential role Simon Community plays, and we fully acknowledge the dignity and rights of individuals who require safe accommodation.
However, support for homelessness does not negate the parallel and lawful right of children, families, vulnerable residents, and long-established communities to safety, safeguarding, and protection from foreseeable risk. These rights must be taken seriously, not overridden.
This objection is therefore not ideological, not discriminatory, and not rooted in stigma. It is grounded in safeguarding law, planning principles, cumulative impact concerns, and child-centred and community risk assessment.
Wrong Plan, Wrong Location
Residents across the Glen Road area are united in the view that the proposed accommodation at 210 Glen Road represents the wrong plan in the wrong location.
The building in question, a former brothers’ residence, is located:
- Immediately adjacent to multiple nurseries, primary schools, and secondary schools
- On a route walked daily by thousands of children travelling to and from education
- Within a densely populated, family-centred, multi-generational residential corridor
- In close proximity to care homes, small local businesses, and community services
Furthermore, unlike the Malone Road setting, the Glen Road is not a mixed student or young adult social environment. It is a high-density safeguarding corridor, characterised by:
- High volumes of supervised and unsupervised children (1000s of children
- attend the nearby schools)
- Long-established family estates (many residents living locally for 50–80+
- years)
- Residents with additional needs who rely on calm, predictable surroundings
- Regular pedestrian traffic at school start, finish, and lunch times
Recent communications and press statements by Simon Community have, in the view of residents, mischaracterised the comparability of the Malone Road and Glen Road environments. These locations are not demographically, socially, or safeguarding equivalent.
Absence of Meaningful Community Engagement
Residents strongly dispute claims that meaningful consultation occurred prior to this
decision. Engagement to date has been:
- Late, occurring after key decisions were already made
- Limited, with no structured engagement with parents or schools – this is critical.
- Parents have a right to be aware and schools must communicate to the public urgently of the proposal.
- Insufficient, given the scale of potential safeguarding implications
- Reactive, rather than consultative
- Quiet, only a few streets on the glen road was notified
No evidence has been provided that, prior to January 2025, Simon Community engaged directly and meaningfully with:
- Parents of children attending nearby schools
- School leadership teams
- Education Authority representatives
- Local care homes
- Community safeguarding groups
This absence of early engagement represents a procedural failure in a location where safeguarding considerations should have been paramount from inception.
Safeguarding Concerns and Documented Community Experiences Residents’ concerns are not speculative. They are grounded in:
- UK-wide academic and peer-reviewed research
- Evidence presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly
- Lived experience reported by residents living adjacent to existing hostel accommodation
Neighbouring residents of other Simon Community hostel facilities have consistently reported the following concerns, which residents understand to be ‘alleged’ allegations and community reports rather than findings of fault. This does not imply that Simon Community caused them. However,
Simon Community must understand the need for these to be addressed, spoke about and sympathetic towards the local community as to why these scenarios would be of concern. We the community and Simon community must not shy away from the safeguarding process and conversations. The whole reason for community engagement is to have open and transparent
dialogue and this includes having sometimes hard conversations in order to ensure we prevent foreseeable risks and ensure safeguarding is at its highest standards and location consideration is top priority. We will also note that these were also mentioned and communicated from members of the public during the community open day:
- Repeated PSNI attendance, in some cases multiple times per day
- Drug dealing and substance misuse occurring in surrounding public areas
- Inadequate safeguarding measures in place internally and externally
- Overdose incidents requiring emergency response
- Violent altercations and dangerous weapon-related incidents in and outside the vicinity
- Staff intimidation and challenges maintaining operational control
- Residents intimidating or threatening neighbouring households
- Break-ins and public disorder in the immediate area
- Serious mental health crises occurring on site
- Suicide incidents within hostel settings
- High proportions of non-local placements
- Inadequate control over visitor access
- Lack of communication to public and ownership when incidents do occur
In addition, residents note publicly reported incidents referenced in media coverage and press statements, which underscore the importance of rigorous safeguarding and location suitability, including:
- Public reporting which raised safeguarding questions regarding placement policies and exclusion criteria, reinforcing the need for transparency around whether individuals with sexual offence histories are excluded from school-adjacent accommodation
- A reported incident in 2024 involving a vehicle being driven into a hostel building and the building subsequently set on fire
- A PSNI response in January 2025 to a protest outside hostel accommodation, which raised public order and community safety concerns
Local residents make no allegations against any individual and do not attribute blame. These matters are cited solely to demonstrate that foreseeable safeguarding, public order, and cumulative impact risks exist, particularly where accommodation is proposed in immediate proximity to schools and childcare facilities.
While residents fully recognise that many individuals experiencing homelessness are themselves victims of trauma and exploitation, the predictable concentration of unmanaged risk in a school dense environment is unacceptable.
Safeguarding responsibilities extend beyond the residents inside the building. They include foreseeable impact on third parties, particularly children. To mention only two of the many potential serious risk scenarios working residents :
Potential Foreseeable Operational Risk Scenario: A foreseeable operational scenario is that, at certain times, an individual may be refused entry or required to leave the accommodation due to intoxication, substance use, or behaviour assessed as unsafe or unmanageable. In such circumstances, the individual would be present in the immediate vicinity of Glen Road, a heavily trafficked school route. This presents a significant safeguarding and public safety risk to local schoolchildren and residents, particularly during peak school travel hours.
Community Safeguarding Concern Regarding Exposure Risk Scenario: Residents also express concern regarding the risk of exposure to drug-related activity in a location used daily by large numbers of children and young people. It is well documented that individuals experiencing substance dependency may engage in high-risk or survival behaviours to fund addiction. In a busy, school-adjacent environment, the presence of unmanaged or displaced individuals raises concern about increased risk of drug-related contact or exposure, particularly where children regularly pass through the area. Local residents note that addiction can be associated with certain high - risk behaviours, which increases concern about safeguarding and property security in a school / family homes areas.
These scenarios would not be acceptable and safeguarding would need to be in place to prevent. However, scenarios like these make residents feel that there is too much risk involved with the proposed new location. The political parties mentioned that discussing a Simon Community hostel accommodation location is ‘sensitive’, we wholeheartedly disagree. Discussions regarding the safeguarding processes and prevention of harm or antisocial behaviour MUST be addressed and discussed immediately and took seriously. Political parties have an obligation to consider the views/concerns of the local community especially when it comes to the 1000s of school children.
A better more suitable location than the glen road should be immediately found.
Mental Health, Substance Use, and Location Suitability
Evidence presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly confirms that approximately 74% of individuals experiencing homelessness have a diagnosed mental health condition, with over half having required hospital admission.
This reality reinforces, not diminishes, the obligation to locate accommodation in appropriate, resilient, and non-sensitive settings.
Residents are particularly concerned by statements that drug use is “not permitted” within accommodation, while simultaneously acknowledging that:
- Residents are not routinely searched
- Rooms are not regularly searched
- Visitors may enter
- No guaranteed checks occur upon re-entry
It is therefore not credible to assert that substance use does not occur, nor to suggest that risks associated with intoxication can be fully contained.
Of particular concern is the scenario whereby a resident under the influence is refused entry and required to leave the premises. In a school-adjacent location, this creates an immediate and unacceptable safeguarding risk not only to the thousands of school children but to the local residents and businesses near by.
Cumulative Impact and Disproportionate Burden
Residents are deeply concerned about the concentration of multiple hostels along the Falls Road-Glen Road corridor, predominantly within West Belfast.
This raises serious questions regarding:
- Cumulative impact assessments
- Equitable distribution across Belfast
- Repeated policing and safeguarding strain on the same communities
- Human rights implications under Article 8 ECHR (private and family life)
The community does not accept the clustering of three to four hostel facilities within a single connected corridor. This level of concentration places disproportionate burden on families who already live in a densely populated urban environment.
As mentioned above families living near existing hostels across Belfast allegedly routinely report:
- Increased police presence
- Noise disturbances
- Antisocial behaviour
- Heightened fear and anxiety for children and older residents
Legal, Human Rights, and Safeguarding Obligations
Residents of the Glen Road would like to remind Simon Community that they both a moral and legal duty of care to ensure that its operational decisions do not create foreseeable harm. Simon Community has a duty of care to guests and the community, requiring careful management to uphold human rights and avoid nuisance, all under relevant UK planning and licensing laws.
A hostel business must consider human rights, primarily through obligations related to safeguarding children, and the right to respect for private/family life, especially near schools, focusing on noise, safety, and appropriate guest conduct to protect the local community's wellbeing, all while adhering to planning/licensing laws that balance community needs with business operation.
Relevant obligations include:
- Protection of children and vulnerable persons (Articles 3 and 8 ECHR)
- Right to respect for private and family life
- Planning and licensing principles requiring compatible land use
- Safeguarding duties extending beyond service users
Proceeding without transparent, child-centred risk assessments represents:
- Incompatible land use
- Failure to demonstrate adequate safeguarding diligence
- Exposure to foreseeable harm
Community Experience During the Open Day
Residents report that, during the January open day, many genuine concerns were:
- Minimised
- Reframed
- Dismissed as misunderstanding or prejudice
This was experienced as undermining and gaslighting, rather than constructive engagement. We reiterate: this is not opposition to homelessness support. It is opposition to this location. We have a right to express concern, we have a right to protect our community and our children from all foreseeable risks.
Formal Community Position
Taking in consideration of the open local petition with clear opposition, the position of the majority of Glen Road residents is clear:
We do not accept the opening of hostel accommodation at 210 Glen Road
The location is unsuitable, unsafe, and inappropriate The risks to children and families are disproportionate and foreseeable risks.
Formal Community Position
Taking in consideration of the open local petition with clear opposition, the position of the majority of Glen Road residents is clear:
- We do not accept the opening of hostel accommodation at 210 Glen Road
- The location is unsuitable, unsafe, and inappropriate
- The risks to children and families are disproportionate and foreseeable
Should Simon Community proceed regardless, residents formally place Simon Community and all relevant agencies on notice that concerns have been raised in advance and accountability will follow any failure to act on safeguarding warnings.
Non-Negotiable Community Requirements
Residents respectfully but firmly require:
A. Immediate Pause and immediate strategic reconsideration of location
- A pause of 6–12 months on any opening
- No opening without at least 8–12 weeks’ written notice to residents and parents
B. Answers to questions, Facts only with Full Transparency and Disclosure
C. Independent Review
- An urgent independent assessment of site suitability
- Involvement of Education Authority, PSNI, Health and Social Services
- Direct engagement with all affected schools
D. Multi-Agency Safeguarding Meeting
Before any opening, a public meeting involving:
- Simon Community
- PSNI
- Education Authority
- Schools
- Care homes
- Local businesses
- Community representatives
This community is not opposing compassion. It is demanding responsibility, transparency, and child-centred decision-making.The safety of 26 residents matters. So too does the safety of thousands of children and families.
We respectfully request a written response within 10 working days, addressing the matters raised and confirming an immediate pause pending review, followed by a meeting to discuss further.
This will give us time to review your responses.
Yours sincerely,
Coolnasilla Residents Group Committee
On behalf of opposing residents of Coolnasilla Gardens, Caffery Hill, Airfield Heights, Shaw’s Road, and the Glen Road area
QUESTIONS:
Formal Safeguarding, Site Selection, and Operational Questions
Residents formally request a full written response to the following questions. These questions are raised in the interests of safeguarding, transparency, and lawful decision-making. Answers must include factual and relevant information, detailing as much as possible.
A. Community Engagement and Consultation
- 1.The Chief Executive of Simon Community has stated publicly that engagement took place with the local community, political representatives, and schools.
a. Please confirm the dates on which engagement occurred prior to 10 January 2025.
b. Please specify the methods of engagement used (e.g. meetings, briefings, correspondence).
c. Please identify the individuals, organisations, schools, or parent bodies engaged.
d. Beyond emails circulated to public agencies, what direct and meaningful engagement took place with parents, schools, or residents?
2.Why was engagement with local schools, parents and residents not undertaken prior to site selection?
3.Did the owner of the property not discuss any concerns with you regarding community risks?
4.During the latest open day why could no staff present many facts and figures we were seeking?
B. Site Selection and Strategic Planning
5.Why was 210 Glen Road selected over alternative locations that are not immediately adjacent to schools, nurseries, childcare, care home, youth centre facilities?
6.Was a cumulative impact assessment carried out in respect of existing hostel provision along the Falls Road–Glen Road corridor?
7.What consideration was given to the concentration of up to four hostel facilities within a single connected corridor? (Note, in the meeting Simon Community confirmed that Malone Rd residents would reside not necessarily west Belfast locals)
8.Why are other areas of Belfast not being asked to share responsibility for hostel provision?
9.Who approved this site, and which internal governance structures or external statutory bodies were involved in that approval?
C. Safeguarding and Risk Assessments
10. What formal safeguarding, child-protection, and public safety assessments were undertaken prior to approving this site?
11. Were any assessments specifically focused on school-adjacent risk, and if so, please provide details.
12. Why do residents and parents feel that insufficient consideration was given to the safety of the thousands of children attending nearby schools, care homes, and local services?
13. Will Simon Community commit to an urgent, independent review of site suitability, involving all political parties, local committee groups, statutory agencies (Education Authority, Social Services, Mental Health agencies, Housing Executive, Transport NI) and all affected schools, businesses, youth clubs?
14.Will written communication be issued to parents and carers of children attending nearby schools outlining safeguarding arrangements?
D. Resident Selection and Vetting
15. What are the resident selection criteria for this facility?
16.What background checks are carried out prior to placement? Please list all professional, statutory, and safeguarding procedures followed.
17.Is there a guarantee that all checks are completed prior to placement, with no exceptions?
18.What proportion of residents are expected to be from West Belfast, and what proportion from outside the area? Please provide projected statistics.
19.What is the anticipated male-to-female ratio of residents? Malone road and then other hostels
20.List how many residents have addiction and mental health issues? Malone road and then other hostels
21.List how many individuals have past criminal convictions (including probation)? Malone road and then other hostels
22.List how many individuals if any have sexual offence histories? Malone road and then other hostels
23. List how many individuals are originally from West Belfast? Malone road and then other hostels
E. Criminal History and Safeguarding Exclusions
24. How are individuals with criminal histories assessed and managed?
25. What explicit safeguards are in place to ensure that individuals with sexual offence histories and past criminal histories (including probation) are not placed in school-adjacent accommodation?
26. What exclusion criteria apply, and how are they enforced?
27. How are background checks conducted where full histories may be difficult to verify?
28. Does the facility accept individuals awaiting immigration decisions, and if so, what safe guarding checks apply? If you are unable to check an individuals background, are they allowed to become a resident?
29. Please specify what categories of sexual, violent, or safeguarding-related offences are deemed incompatible with residence at this location.
F. Mental Health and Clinical Support
30. How are individuals with serious mental health conditions assessed prior to placement?
31. Confirm that ALL necessary checks take place prior to placement?
32. How is ongoing risk to the individual or the wider community monitored and managed in a school-adjacent location?
33. Which mental health agencies are regularly involved on site?
34. What escalation procedures apply if behaviour presents a safeguarding concern to residents or schoolchildren?
G. Substance Use Policies
35. Is alcohol or drug use permitted within the building?
36. What procedures apply if alcohol or drugs are found, or if intoxication is suspected?
37. Are checks conducted when residents enter or re-enter the building, particularly during evening or night hours?
38.How can Simon Community reasonably assert that drug use does not occur without routine or proportionate security checks? To mention only two serious foreseeable risk ‘scenarios’ that must be spoke about and avoided completely in order to keep community safe of many:
39. Foreseeable Operational Risk Scenario: A foreseeable operational scenario is that, at certain times, an individual may be refused entry or required to leave the accommodation due to intoxication, substance use, or behaviour assessed as unsafe or unmanageable. In such circumstances, the individual would be present in the immediate vicinity of Glen Road, a heavily trafficked school route. This presents a significant safeguarding and public safety risk to local schoolchildren and residents, particularly during peak school travel hours. What would be the measures in place to ensure no one outside the gate, particularly children?
40. Community Safeguarding Concern Regarding Exposure Risks scenario: Residents also express concern regarding the risk of exposure to drug-related activity in a location used daily by large numbers of children and young people. It is well documented that individuals experiencing substance dependency may engage in high-risk or survival behaviours to fund addiction. In a busy, school-adjacent environment, the presence of unmanaged or displaced individuals raises concern about increased risk of drug-related contact or exposure, particularly where children regularly pass through the area. Local residents note that addiction can be associated with certain high - risk behaviours, which increases concern about safeguarding and property security in a school - adjacent setting. What would be the measures in place to provide this from happening?
H. Exclusion, Refusal of Entry, and Escalation
41.What occurs if a resident is refused entry due to intoxication, aggression, or abusive behaviour?
42.Are individuals required to leave the premises in such circumstances, and if so, how are risks to the surrounding community mitigated?
I.Security, Staffing, and Incident Management
43.Will security be present on site at all times?
44.What qualifications and safeguarding training will security and general staff hold?
45.What is the staff-to-resident ratio, and how is adequacy ensured?
46.How are incidents managed outside normal office hours?
47.What enforcement actions are taken where unacceptable conduct or disturbances occur?
48.List occurrences when you would notify the schools, businesses, local residents immediately and how this would happen?
J. Access, Visitors, and Operational Controls
49. Are residents permitted to bring visitors into the building?
50. What controls are in place to monitor visitors and prevent the entry of drugs or weapons?
51. What does “24-hour operational” mean in practice?
52. Are gates open at all times, who is permitted access to the grounds, and how is access controlled?
53. How are the grounds monitored?
K. Community Reporting and Protection
54.Who can residents and businesses contact to report concerns or incidents?
55.Local residents to current hostels have reported serious fear and insecurity when reporting an antisocial incident or making a complaint. How will confidentiality, anonymity, and protection from intimidation or retaliation be guaranteed for complainants?
L. Curfew and Movement Controls
56.Given the school-adjacent location, what curfew or movement restrictions will apply?
57.Why is unrestricted 24-hour movement considered appropriate in this specific location?
M.Serious strategic decision
58.Do our feelings and concerns really matter to Simon Community? Given the majority of the Glen Road community opposes to the opening of a hostel accommodation would you consider not opening and relocating to a better more suitable location? Would you strategically prioritise the safety of our local school children?