Subject: Lawns Court article dated 11 September 2026 – request for factual update and right of reply

Dear Mr Speit,

I am writing in response to your article published on 11 September 2026 concerning Lawns Court.

I fully recognise the outcome of the recent court proceedings and I am not writing to attempt to re-argue that decision through the press. However, I am concerned that the article presents a significantly incomplete picture of both the historic position at Lawns Court and, importantly, the condition of the site at the time your article was published.

The article states that I had “refused to clear the mess” and suggests that I only began taking responsibility after repeated enforcement action. I do not accept that this fairly reflects what has happened.

There has been a six-year history behind this development involving the unresolved planning and Section 106 position, repeated attempts to obtain a workable and fundable solution, substantial financial difficulties arising from the stalled development, third-party fly-tipping, theft, unauthorised access and repeated interference with the site.

Whether the steps I took during the period covered by the prosecution were legally sufficient was a matter for the court and I respect the court's decision. That is different, however, from suggesting that there was simply a deliberate refusal to act or that every condition found on the land was something created by me.

There is substantial documentary evidence showing the efforts made over a number of years to resolve the underlying planning position and obtain finance to complete both the development and the necessary site works.

It is also important to correct the current position.

Following the engagement reported by Nub News in August, Fastglobe became involved and provided the investment necessary to undertake a substantial remediation programme at the site.

That programme included substantial vegetation and scrub clearance, removal of fly-tipped and accumulated waste, restoration and painting of the hoardings, improvements to access and security, dealing with abandoned vehicles, and measures intended to prevent further dumping, theft and unauthorised access.

The works did not merely commence after the recent court hearing.

They were already actively underway during August and, by 3 September 2026, the principal physical clean-up works had been completed. Thurrock Council itself attended on 3 September to undertake the final booked bulky-waste collection. The only remaining security item has been the CCTV installation, which has been delayed by shipping of the equipment.

I have extensive dated photographic evidence of the works before, during and after remediation and would be very happy to provide this to Nub News.

There is also an important distinction concerning some of the material shown in photographs of the site. An area which may appear from photographs to contain spoil or construction material contains stored topsoil and material retained for the proposed second phase of the development. The vegetation around that material has now been cut back and managed, but the material itself is required for the future development and cannot simply be treated as fly-tipped waste.

The broader issue at Lawns Court has never simply been an attempt to “reduce a Section 106 community payment”, as the article describes it.

The underlying planning and Section 106 position has remained unresolved for approximately six years and has had a direct effect on the ability to finance and complete the remaining development. There is a substantial documentary history concerning that position, including professional viability evidence, planning applications and correspondence with Thurrock Council.

That does not remove the responsibility to maintain the site, but it is highly relevant to understanding why the development stalled and why a permanent solution has been so difficult to achieve.

The position now is materially different.

The site has been cleaned up, the vegetation has been brought under control, the hoardings and security measures have been reinstated, waste has been removed and Fastglobe has invested in bringing the land back under active management.

The objective now should be to resolve the remaining planning position so that the second phase can proceed and Lawns Court can finally be completed properly, rather than allowing the site to remain caught in the same cycle for another six years.

I also think it is important for residents to understand that I did not want Lawns Court to end up in this position. The consequences of the development becoming stalled have cost me personally and commercially hundreds of thousands of pounds. I have continued trying to find a route to complete it throughout that period.

I am happy to meet with Nub News, provide the documentary and photographic evidence supporting the above, and answer questions openly.

I would therefore ask that the article is updated to reflect the current completed remediation works and that this response, or a fair summary of it, is included so that readers are able to understand both sides of what has become a very long-running matter.

Ultimately, the outcome I want is the same one that residents want: a properly maintained site and the completion of Lawns Court to the standard it was always intended to achieve.

Kind regards,

Tom Ingleton