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
