No. ObjectNow does not claim to be formally endorsed, approved, sponsored or affiliated with the Scottish Government, the Energy Consents Unit (ECU), Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW), any local planning authority or any other public authority. Those bodies perform statutory or administrative functions independently of ObjectNow, and use of our platform should not be represented as official government approval of ObjectNow as an organisation.

There is, however, an important distinction between formal endorsement of an organisation and an authority confirming that representations produced or submitted through a particular process can be accepted. ObjectNow's position is that this distinction should be described accurately and transparently.

The position in early 2025

ObjectNow's first public objection platform was developed for Glenvernoch Wind Farm near Newton Stewart in Dumfries and Galloway. During that campaign, ObjectNow was made aware that the ECU had been asked to consider whether the platform was an acceptable method for members of the public to use when preparing and submitting representations. ObjectNow understood that the query had arisen following concerns associated with the applicant, EnergieKontor, although we do not present the origin of that query as independently established by a published ECU record.

The written response received at the time was understood by ObjectNow to confirm that the relevant features of the process had been checked, including that users verified their details and made choices about the matters included in their own representation. On that basis, ObjectNow continued operating the platform on the understanding that representations generated through that user-controlled process could be submitted and considered through the then-available ECU representation channels.

ObjectNow also understands that campaigners independently contacted the ECU about the use of the platform and received responses which they understood as confirming that using ObjectNow did not, in itself, prevent a representation from being accepted. ObjectNow does not describe those exchanges as a formal endorsement of our organisation. Our position is narrower: the correspondence available to us at the time gave us a reasonable basis to understand that the user-verification and user-selection model was an acceptable means of facilitating public representations through the submission methods then permitted.

What changed in January 2026

On 16 January 2026 the Scottish Government changed the process for public representations on onshore energy consent applications. The Energy Consents public portal became the principal electronic route for public representations and the previous email submission route was removed. This meant ObjectNow could no longer transmit representations directly to the ECU by email on behalf of users in the way the earlier platform had operated.

Scottish Government material published in connection with the change states that the new portal was intended to simplify public submissions, provide confirmation of receipt, improve publication and consultation transparency, strengthen verification and compliance safeguards, and support more consistent analysis of community concerns. ObjectNow recognises that the Scottish Government is entitled to determine the administrative channels through which representations are received, subject to the applicable legal and public-law requirements.

What remains disputed

The later position communicated to ObjectNow has drawn a distinction between the ECU having examined aspects of how the earlier ObjectNow platform operated and the ECU or Scottish Government having formally approved or endorsed ObjectNow. ObjectNow accepts the second part of that distinction: we have never claimed formal government endorsement.

Our outstanding question concerns the first part. If the platform was examined in 2025, its identity-verification and user-selection safeguards were considered, and representations using that process were accepted through the submission channels then in force, ObjectNow considers it reasonable to ask precisely what status the ECU attributed to that process at the time. We have sought a clear factual explanation of the distinction between confirming that the process could be used for representations and subsequently stating that this did not amount to approval of the platform as a means of objecting.

That is a request for clarification, not a claim that the Scottish Government endorsed ObjectNow. Until the relevant correspondence and official explanation are read together, we do not consider it appropriate to characterise the position more strongly than the evidence supports.

Administrative workload and public participation

ObjectNow recognises that increased numbers of representations can create additional administrative work for public authorities. The same planning and consenting system must also process increasing volumes of application material, revisions, supplementary environmental information and technical documentation. ObjectNow's position is that administrative workload alone should not be used to characterise genuine public participation as a problem.

For communities, the burden operates in the opposite direction. Major energy applications can comprise hundreds of documents and thousands of pages prepared by professional teams over extended periods. Members of the public may then have a comparatively short statutory or advertised period in which to understand the proposal, identify relevant effects and prepare a representation. ObjectNow exists to reduce that information and resource imbalance.

The relevant question should not be whether technology has made it easier for more people to participate. It should be whether the representations are genuine, attributable to real people, relevant to the decision and submitted in accordance with the applicable process. A higher level of participation may increase administrative work, but it can also indicate that more people are able to engage with a process that they previously found difficult to navigate.

Verification and accountability

ObjectNow has deliberately built verification and audit controls into its platform. Our systems are designed to establish that a representation originates from a real user, to record the choices made through the platform and to retain sufficient audit information to investigate the provenance of a submission where necessary. Where appropriate and lawful, ObjectNow can provide an authority with evidence from its audit process to support verification of a representation's origin.

These controls do not make ObjectNow an official government service and do not oblige an authority to adopt our verification method. They demonstrate, however, that the platform is designed around identifiable human participation rather than anonymous automated submission.

ObjectNow's position on energy development and environmental protection

ObjectNow exists to support communities in scrutinising development proposals and presenting relevant evidence to decision-makers. We consider that renewable and grid infrastructure should be subject to the same rigorous examination of environmental effects, community impacts and evidential quality as other major development. Support in principle for renewable or low-carbon infrastructure does not remove the requirement to assess the effects of an individual proposal.

That position is consistent with the structure of current Scottish planning policy. NPF4 Policy 11 supports renewable, low-carbon and zero-emission technologies, but it also requires project design and mitigation to address matters including impacts on communities, landscape and visual effects, historic environment, hydrology, the water environment, flood risk, biodiversity including birds, trees, woods and forests, and decommissioning and restoration. NPF4 also contains specific protections and assessment requirements for peatland and carbon-rich soils.

ObjectNow therefore does not proceed from the assumption that every renewable-energy proposal should be refused, or that every such proposal is environmentally harmful. Our position is that environmental claims made for a development do not exempt the individual project from scrutiny. Where application evidence is incomplete, inaccurate or inconsistent with conditions experienced locally, communities are entitled to identify that evidence and ask the decision-maker to examine it.

Local knowledge and lived experience are particularly relevant where desktop studies, datasets or modelling do not accurately describe conditions on the ground. Technology-assisted evidence can be useful, but it is not infallible. The appropriate response is to test competing evidence on its merits, not to assume that professionally produced or computer-assisted material must be correct while community evidence is inherently less reliable.

Carbon claims also require care. Official UK statistics state that UK territorial greenhouse-gas emissions account for less than 1% of the global total, but territorial statistics exclude emissions occurring abroad in the supply chains of imported goods and services. ObjectNow therefore does not use the territorial percentage alone as proof that renewable development has no climate value. Our position is that lifecycle effects, construction, imported components, land disturbance, peat, replacement, repowering and decommissioning should be considered where they are relevant to the applicable assessment and policy framework.

Similarly, it would be inaccurate to state that all modern wind turbines necessarily have a lifespan of less than 25 years. Current UK policy material recognises that modern turbines may have longer design lives and that consents may be sought for 35 years or more. Repowering, life extension and decommissioning nevertheless remain genuine planning considerations, and the environmental consequences of those stages should be addressed where relevant.

The principle ObjectNow applies

ObjectNow does not ask any authority to endorse us. We ask authorities to apply their own legal and procedural rules consistently, to distinguish genuine verified participation from abuse, and to assess the substance of representations rather than the convenience or inconvenience of the method used to prepare them.

We will continue to challenge application evidence where our research identifies a proper basis for doing so, and we will continue to provide communities with tools that make complex planning and energy-consent material easier to understand. The final decision remains with the legally responsible authority, and the final decision about whether and what to submit through ObjectNow remains with the individual participant.

Sources and further information

Scottish Government - Energy consents: how to support or object to an application

Scottish Government - Energy Consents public portal decision materials: EIR release

Scottish Government - National Planning Framework 4

Scottish Government - NPF4 planning guidance: Policy 2, climate mitigation and adaptation

Scottish Government - Biodiversity: planning guidance

UK Government - 2025 UK greenhouse gas emissions: provisional figures

UK Government - National Policy Statement for renewable energy infrastructure (EN-3), 2025

ObjectNow recordsThe account of the 2025 Glenvernoch correspondence and subsequent exchanges about the status of the ObjectNow platform is stated from ObjectNow's own correspondence and records. It is not presented as a published statement of formal endorsement by the ECU or Scottish Government.

Last checked: 25 September 2026

ObjectNow treats personal information as information entrusted to it for a defined purpose.

ObjectNow processes personal data so that it can provide and secure its services, including creating and transmitting representations where the user asks it to do so, maintaining the records needed to operate the service, verifying users, preventing abuse, responding to support requests and meeting legal or regulatory obligations. ObjectNow states in its published Privacy Policy that it acts as a data controller for the personal data it processes through its website and services and is registered with the Information Commissioner's Office.

ObjectNow does not sell personal information.

ObjectNow does not sell or rent users' personal data and does not disclose it to unrelated third parties for advertising, marketing or commercial data-broker purposes. This does not mean that personal information is never disclosed to anyone outside ObjectNow. Where a user asks ObjectNow to submit a representation, the information required for that representation is transmitted to the relevant planning, consenting or public authority.

Necessary service providers may process information on ObjectNow's behalf, and information may also be disclosed where required by law or where a lawful disclosure is necessary for the investigation or prevention of unlawful activity.

ObjectNow collects only information required for the service and its security.

Depending on the service being used, this can include a user's name, postal address, postcode, email address, information voluntarily included in a representation or support request, and limited technical or security information such as IP addresses, timestamps and server logs. Technical information is used for purposes such as verification, service reliability, duplicate and abuse detection, fraud investigation and protection of the platform.

Personal information is protected through technical and organisational controls.

ObjectNow uses encryption where reasonably practicable and restricts access to systems and information according to operational need. Access controls, verification measures, logging and security monitoring are intended to reduce unauthorised access, misuse and loss. No internet-connected service can truthfully guarantee absolute security, so ObjectNow's approach is to apply proportionate safeguards and review security controls as the service develops.

ObjectNow does not keep personal data simply because it may be useful in the future.

You have data-protection rights.

Depending on the circumstances, these include rights of access, rectification, erasure, restriction and objection. A Subject Access Request (SAR) can be used to ask for a copy of personal information ObjectNow holds about you together with the supplementary information required by data-protection law. ObjectNow must respond without undue delay and normally no later than one calendar month after receiving a valid request.

Where ObjectNow reasonably needs information to confirm the requester's identity, the response period starts when that necessary information is received. For a SAR, current law also permits the time limit to be paused where clarification is reasonably required to identify the information being requested.

Where a request is complex, or the individual has made a number of requests, the response period can be extended by up to a further two months, making the maximum period three calendar months from the applicable start date. If an extension is required, ObjectNow must tell the requester within the initial one-month period and explain why more time is necessary.

The right to be forgotten is a right to erasure, but it is not absolute.

UK GDPR Article 17 gives individuals a right to request erasure in specified circumstances. ObjectNow must respond to an erasure request without undue delay and normally no later than one calendar month after receiving the request. If information is reasonably required to verify the requester's identity, the response period begins when that necessary information is received.

Where the request is complex or the individual has made a number of requests, the response period can be extended by up to a further two months. ObjectNow must notify the requester within the first month if it needs to use that extension and explain why. The right to erasure is not absolute.

For example, continued processing may be permitted or required where there is a legal obligation or where the information is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. ObjectNow will therefore assess what information is held, why it is held and whether an exception applies. If erasure is refused in whole or in part, the requester will be told the reason and informed of the right to complain to the ICO and seek a judicial remedy.

How do I make a Subject Access Request or ask ObjectNow to erase my information?

Submit a support ticket through the ObjectNow Support Centre and identify the request as a Data Protection, Subject Access or Right to Erasure request. Explain what you are asking ObjectNow to provide, correct, restrict or erase. To prevent somebody else from obtaining or deleting your information, ObjectNow may ask for proportionate information to verify identity where necessary. In the ordinary case the legal deadline is one calendar month, not 30 days.

For example, a request received on 3 September would ordinarily be due by 3 October. If the corresponding date does not exist in the following month, the deadline falls on the last day of that month; if it falls on a weekend or public holiday, the deadline moves to the next working day. Where a lawful extension applies, the total response period can reach three calendar months.

You can also raise a concern with the ICO.

If you believe your personal information has not been handled properly, you can raise the matter with ObjectNow so that it can investigate and respond. You also have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. ObjectNow's registration with the ICO does not amount to ICO approval or endorsement of ObjectNow; registration and regulatory oversight are distinct from endorsement.

Sources and further information

ObjectNow Privacy Policy

Information Commissioner's Office - A guide to subject access

Information Commissioner's Office - Right to erasure

Information Commissioner's Office - Storage limitation

Last checked: 26 September 2026

ObjectNow does not permit representations to be submitted in another person's identity without their knowledge and authority.

The platform is designed for genuine individuals to make their own deliberate decision to participate. Deliberately using another person's identity or personal information to create a representation that they did not authorise is misuse of the service and may also raise legal issues depending on what occurred, the information used and the intention of the person responsible.

The platform uses multiple layers of anti-abuse protection.

ObjectNow's controls include verification of access to the email address supplied by the user, human and bot detection, duplicate-submission controls, rate limiting and behavioural or security measures intended to identify suspicious or automated activity. Verification is not itself a submission: the user must progress through the process, make the required selections, review the representation and actively choose to submit it.

Suspicious activity can trigger additional protection.

Where ObjectNow's security systems identify activity that indicates a person may be the victim of impersonation, misrepresentation, unauthorised use of their details or other suspicious activity, the system can notify the affected user and provide steps for checking or reporting the activity. Automated security alerts are protective indicators rather than a finding that a criminal offence has occurred.

If you receive an alert or believe your details have been used without permission, report it promptly.

Submit a ticket through the ObjectNow Support Centre and select or state that the issue concerns suspected fraudulent submission, impersonation or misuse of personal data. Provide the representation or application reference if known, the email address affected and enough information for ObjectNow to identify the relevant transaction. Do not publish security codes, passwords or unnecessary identity documents in a public forum.

ObjectNow can preserve relevant technical records while the allegation is investigated.

Where a credible report of misuse is received, normal deletion or retention processes may need to be adjusted so that relevant security records are not destroyed while an investigation, dispute or potential legal claim is active. Any retention must still have a lawful purpose and be limited to what is necessary. Relevant material may include timestamps, verification events, IP or security logs, duplicate-detection records and transaction identifiers where those records exist.

ObjectNow will distinguish an allegation from evidence.

An unfamiliar representation, incorrect address, disputed email or security alert should be investigated, but none of those facts alone proves who was responsible or that a criminal offence occurred. ObjectNow can examine the records it controls, identify inconsistencies and preserve relevant evidence, but criminal responsibility is determined through the proper investigative and judicial process.

The relevant authority should also be told where an unauthorised representation has entered the official record.

ObjectNow can assist the affected person in identifying the recipient authority and the representation concerned. The authority controls its own official record and decides what action is appropriate in relation to a disputed representation. ObjectNow cannot unilaterally delete or alter a representation after it has entered another body's records.

ObjectNow can cooperate with police, regulators and other competent authorities through lawful channels.

If a law-enforcement authority investigates suspected criminal conduct, ObjectNow can preserve and, where there is a lawful basis, disclose relevant information needed for that investigation. ICO guidance makes clear that organisations can share personal information with law-enforcement authorities where the data-protection requirements are satisfied, but disclosure should be necessary, proportionate and limited to relevant information. A police request or court order may define what information is required.

ObjectNow's role is to preserve evidence and assist a lawful investigation, not to determine guilt.

Where the evidence indicates serious deliberate misuse, ObjectNow will cooperate with the relevant authority and provide available records through the appropriate legal process. ObjectNow will take reasonable steps to support the identification and investigation of the responsible person. Whether somebody is charged, prosecuted or convicted is a matter for the police, prosecutors and courts, not ObjectNow.

Security investigations do not remove the affected person's data-protection rights.

A person who believes their details were misused can also make a Subject Access Request or request rectification, restriction or erasure where the relevant right applies. Some information may need to be retained where necessary for an active investigation, compliance with law or the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. ObjectNow will explain the position where a request cannot lawfully be fulfilled in full.

Why does ObjectNow retain limited security information?

Anti-fraud controls are effective only if suspicious events can be investigated after they occur. Limited technical records can help establish whether a verification was completed, when an action occurred, whether repeated attempts came from the same technical source and whether automated or duplicate behaviour was detected. These records are not retained for advertising or profiling. Their purpose is platform security, accountability, abuse prevention and, where necessary, supporting a lawful investigation.

Sources and further information

ObjectNow Privacy Policy

ObjectNow - verification and anti-abuse safeguards

Information Commissioner's Office - Sharing personal data with law enforcement authorities

Information Commissioner's Office - Personal data breaches: a guide

Last checked: 26 September 2026

No. The use of artificial intelligence or other software to assist with planning research, analysis, spelling, grammar, organisation or accessibility does not, by itself, make a representation spam. The proper distinction is between genuine participation supported by technology and automated, fabricated or indiscriminate material that is not properly checked or does not represent the considered views of a real participant.

Why ObjectNow is setting out its position

A PlaceChangers article entitled AI, objection spam and the future of planning consultation referred specifically to ObjectNow while discussing what it described as an emerging problem of AI-generated objection spam. The article raises legitimate concerns about generic content, fabricated references, repetitive submissions and automation. ObjectNow shares concerns about inaccurate or artificial material entering the planning process. We do not accept, however, that responsible technological assistance to genuine participants should be treated as equivalent to spam.

PlaceChangers did not contact ObjectNow for comment before publishing the article. There was no legal requirement for it to do so. Had we been approached, we could have explained how ObjectNow actually operates and the substantial human work undertaken before a campaign is made available through our platform.

How ObjectNow actually uses AI

ObjectNow is a human-led platform. Our volunteers can spend hundreds of hours examining major planning and energy applications, which may contain hundreds of documents and thousands of pages of technical material. This work includes considering application documents against the relevant planning framework, local development plan policies and other material applicable to the proposal.

We use AI during the research and analytical stage. It can assist our volunteers in processing large volumes of documentation, comparing what an applicant has submitted with relevant planning frameworks and policies, and producing internal analytical reports identifying matters that warrant closer examination. Those reports are research aids. Volunteers examine the underlying documents, check the relevant sources and determine which issues should be investigated or developed further.

AI does not generate the Foundation Objection material presented to an ObjectNow user for submission. The foundation content is researched, reviewed and approved in advance through our human-led campaign process. The public-facing platform then uses programmed algorithms together with pre-approved data and foundation material to assemble a representation according to the matters selected by the individual user. It is not asking a generative AI model to invent an objection for that person.

The individual remains responsible for their final representation. They can read the assembled material, decide which available matters they wish to raise, edit or remove text, reword it and add their own local knowledge or experience before submission. Human oversight therefore exists throughout ObjectNow's research and publication process, while the objector retains control of what they ultimately submit.

What the planning system says about AI

There is no general rule of planning law requiring a member of the public to compose every word of a representation personally and without assistance. Planning decision-making is concerned with the substance and relevance of the matters raised. Scottish Government guidance, for example, recognises legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters as capable of being a material consideration. Whether a consideration is material is a question of law, while the weight given to it is for the decision-maker.

Current official guidance also expressly permits responsible AI use. The Planning Inspectorate states that AI can be used positively when it is properly and transparently used, and permits people to use AI to help prepare information submitted in an appeal, application or examination. Interested parties may use AI to help draft or translate a representation, subject to the Inspectorate's requirements concerning disclosure of substantive AI use, checking and responsibility for accuracy.

The Planning Advisory Service similarly recognises that AI has the potential to support wider and more informed participation in planning. Its guidance focuses on the quality of the resulting representation: it should be relevant, accurate, evidence-based, clear, proportionate and specific to the proposal or policy. Those are appropriate standards. They address the quality of the material rather than assuming that the use of technology makes participation illegitimate.

Accessibility and ordinary writing assistance

Not everyone enters the planning system with the same writing ability, confidence or experience. A person may be dyslexic, have difficulty with spelling, grammar or punctuation, struggle to organise complex information, use English as an additional language, or simply have little experience of formal planning correspondence. Software such as ChatGPT can help a person organise their own material or improve its grammar, spelling and presentation without changing the substance of the views they wish to express.

The Planning Inspectorate's current guidance is particularly clear on this distinction. It does not require disclosure of routine tools such as spellchecking, grammar suggestions, formatting tools or accessibility functions. Its disclosure requirements are directed at deliberate and substantive uses of AI that create or materially alter content.

The Equality Act 2010 also provides a wider legal context for accessibility in England, Wales and Scotland through reasonable-adjustment duties in specified circumstances. It does not create a specific statutory right to use ChatGPT in a planning representation, but it reinforces the importance of avoiding unnecessary barriers that can place disabled people at a substantial disadvantage.

The same standard must apply to applicants and communities

AI is not used only by objectors or campaign organisations. Official Planning Inspectorate guidance expressly permits applicants to use AI to help prepare information for submission, provided its use is disclosed where required and the applicant remains responsible for the accuracy and lawfulness of the material. The Inspectorate's guidance therefore recognises a legitimate role for AI on both sides of the planning process.

ObjectNow considers that this principle must be applied consistently. It would be difficult to justify accepting AI-assisted research, document preparation, summarisation or analysis when undertaken by an applicant or professional adviser while characterising comparable assistance as 'spam' when it is used by a community organisation or resident to understand and respond to the same application.

The issue is the reliability of the evidence, not who used the technology. Desktop studies, modelling, datasets and technology-assisted assessments can be useful, but they are not infallible. They may not always capture conditions experienced on the ground. Local knowledge can identify matters that a desk-based assessment has missed, simplified or incorrectly characterised, including the actual use of a route, localised flooding, vegetation, views, landscape characteristics or other site-specific conditions.

Where a resident's first-hand evidence conflicts with a desktop assessment, neither should be accepted or rejected merely because one was produced professionally or with technological assistance. The relevant evidence should be examined on its merits, against the applicable planning framework and the facts of the particular site. AI-generated or AI-assisted inaccuracies in an applicant's material deserve the same scrutiny as inaccuracies in a public representation.

This is why ObjectNow does not regard 'AI spam' as a useful label simply because technology has been used. If AI produces inaccurate, fabricated or irrelevant material, that material should be challenged regardless of whether it originated with an applicant, consultant, authority, campaign organisation or resident. Conversely, where technology helps a genuine participant analyse evidence accurately or communicate relevant information clearly, its use should not itself diminish the legitimacy of the resulting material.

Participation and proportionality

Major applicants may have access to planning consultants, environmental specialists, lawyers and other professional advisers, and may prepare extensive technical documentation over a substantial period. Members of the public can then be expected to understand that material and formulate a response within the applicable consultation period. Technology can help reduce that information and resource imbalance without changing the legal test applied to the resulting representation.

Making participation easier is not the same as manufacturing participation. If a person genuinely holds a concern about a development but lacks the specialist knowledge, writing confidence or time required to navigate a substantial application unaided, helping that person understand the material and express a relevant concern enables participation that might otherwise be lost. It does not create the underlying opinion.

ObjectNow's position

ObjectNow supports responsible, transparent and human-supervised use of technology throughout the planning process. We do not support fabricated evidence, invented planning policies or case law, bot-generated representations, duplicate submissions designed to manipulate participation, or submissions made without the knowledge of the person concerned.

The same standards should apply to everyone. Material should be assessed for its accuracy, relevance and evidential value, with appropriate human responsibility for its content. A representation that is inaccurate, irrelevant or fabricated remains deficient whether it was written by a person, copied from a template or produced with AI assistance. Equally, a genuine and relevant planning representation does not become spam merely because technology helped a person understand the application or express their views.

Sources and further information

Planning Inspectorate - Use of artificial intelligence in casework evidence

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-casework-evidence

Planning Inspectorate - Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: Advice on the Preparation and Submission of Application Documents

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects-advice-on-the-preparation-and-submission-of-application-documents

Planning Advisory Service - AI and Planning Representations

https://www.local.gov.uk/pas/topics/digital-planning/digital-development-management/ai-and-planning-representations

Scottish Government - Planning Circular 3/2022: Development Management Procedures, Annex A

https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-circular-3-2022-development-management-procedures/pages/9/

Equality Act 2010

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15

PlaceChangers - AI, objection spam and the future of planning consultation

https://www.placechangers.co.uk/blog/ai-objection-spam-and-the-future-of-planning-consultation

Last checked:

25 September 2026

ObjectNow is an independent, volunteer-led campaign organisation based in Scotland. We assist campaign groups and members of the public who want to understand and respond to planning and energy infrastructure applications.

From time to time, we see speculation about who funds ObjectNow, who is behind it and why the names and addresses of our volunteers are not published on our website. Some of the more imaginative theories do make us laugh, but the questions themselves are reasonable and deserve a straightforward answer.

ObjectNow is not funded by oil companies, fossil-fuel companies, energy developers, political parties or an undisclosed organisation operating behind the scenes. We are not based offshore or outside Scotland.

There is no external company, campaign organisation or individual dictating ObjectNow's policies, deciding which projects we examine or controlling the conclusions we reach. ObjectNow is genuinely independent of outside influence.

ObjectNow is also not a registered limited company, and we do not claim to be one. The fact that somebody cannot find a company called ObjectNow at Companies House therefore does not indicate that ObjectNow is offshore, secret or improperly constituted. Companies House registration and company-number disclosure requirements apply to registered companies.

Why don't you publish the names and addresses of the people behind ObjectNow?

Because ObjectNow is a volunteer organisation and we do not consider publishing the personal names and residential addresses of our volunteers on the internet necessary or appropriate.

That does not mean ObjectNow hides its identity from the authorities with whom we deal. The Scottish Government and its Energy Consents Unit know exactly who we are. They have the relevant names, contact information and addresses for the people operating ObjectNow. We communicate with public authorities using our genuine identities and contact information.

There is an important distinction between accountability to the authorities and publishing volunteers' private information to anybody who happens to visit a website.

There is no general requirement simply arising from operating a voluntary campaign group that requires every volunteer's name and home address to be published publicly. Different disclosure requirements can apply depending upon an organisation's legal structure and activities, which is why claims based solely on Companies House requirements can be misleading.

Who controls ObjectNow?

We do. ObjectNow determines its own policies, research, campaigns and operating decisions.

Campaign groups can ask us for assistance and can provide local information and evidence. That does not give those organisations control over ObjectNow. Likewise, somebody providing financial support does not acquire the ability to determine our planning positions or policies.

Our independence also means that we are free to disagree with organisations or individuals we have previously assisted.

Is ObjectNow funded by "Big Oil"?

No. Categorically not. ObjectNow is not funded by oil companies or the fossil-fuel industry.

We have seen suggestions that our work opposing or scrutinising renewable-energy developments means that an oil company must secretly be financing us. That assumption is false.

ObjectNow examines individual planning and infrastructure proposals on their evidence, environmental effects, planning policy and legal framework. Scrutinising a wind farm, solar development, battery-storage facility, transmission line or substation does not imply opposition to renewable energy generally, nor does it establish a connection with another part of the energy industry.

Is ObjectNow based offshore or outside Scotland?

No. ObjectNow is based in Scotland and is operated from Scotland.

Suggestions that we are secretly an offshore organisation appear largely to have arisen from people being unable to locate a limited company called ObjectNow on Companies House. As explained above, that starts from the incorrect assumption that ObjectNow claims to be a limited company. It does not.

Why not publish everyone's details simply to stop the rumours?

Because internet speculation is not a sufficient reason to publish volunteers' private information.

People are entitled to scrutinise ObjectNow. They are entitled to question our arguments, challenge our evidence, disagree with our conclusions and ask reasonable questions about how we operate. We think that scrutiny is healthy.

Our response is therefore to be transparent about what ObjectNow does, how our platform operates, how our planning material is produced, how we are funded and how our decisions are made.

We do not believe transparency requires volunteers to surrender their personal privacy.

The relevant authorities know who they are dealing with. Our work and planning arguments can be scrutinised on their merits. Ultimately, members of the public remain free to decide whether they agree with our material and whether they want to use ObjectNow.

In summary: ObjectNow is a Scottish-based, volunteer-led and genuinely independent organisation. We are not funded or controlled by the oil industry, we are not an offshore organisation, and there is no hidden organisation directing our activities. The Scottish Government and Energy Consents Unit know who we are and hold the relevant contact details. We simply do not publish our volunteers' private names and residential addresses on the internet.

Sources and further information

Companies House / GOV.UK: Running a limited company - signs, stationery and promotional material https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/signs-stationery-and-promotional-material

ICO: What privacy information should we provide? https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/the-right-to-be-informed/what-privacy-information-should-we-provide/

Last checked: 25 September 2026