ObjectNow is a campaign-specific public participation platform. For a supported proposal, ObjectNow prepares a structured evidence base and campaign material in advance. A user then chooses the issues that matter to them, can provide relevant personal or local information, reviews the resulting representation, edits it if they wish, and decides whether to submit it.

The platform is intended to help people participate in planning and infrastructure consultations. It does not make the decision to object for the user and it does not replace the user’s responsibility to check that their final representation accurately reflects their own views.

No. The platform is designed around user choice. Campaign material is prepared in advance, but the individual chooses whether to participate and which available concerns they want to raise. Where the platform allows personal information or additional comments, the user decides what to provide.

Before submission, the representation should be reviewed by the user. Sections can be removed or edited where the campaign configuration permits. The final decision to submit remains with the individual.

No. ObjectNow’s current model is human-led and campaign-specific. The underlying planning issues, evidence and foundation material are prepared and reviewed as part of the campaign setup. Technology may assist with phrasing, grammar, document handling or producing variations from that approved material, but it is not intended to invent new planning facts or independently decide the grounds of objection.

The user remains responsible for reviewing the final text and ensuring it represents their views before submission.

A Foundation Objection is ObjectNow’s campaign-level evidence and argument base. It is prepared from the application material, relevant planning policy, consultation information and campaign-supplied local evidence. It identifies the principal planning issues that may be relevant to the proposal.

The public-facing platform then uses approved campaign material derived from that work so that individuals can select relevant issues and prepare their own representation. A Foundation Objection is not a substitute for reading the application documents or for professional legal, planning or technical advice where that is required.

Yes. The purpose of the review stage is to allow you to read the representation and make sure it reflects your own position. Depending on the campaign configuration, you may be able to edit wording, add personal or local information, remove material that does not apply to you, or otherwise personalise the representation.

Do not submit a statement that you do not agree with or cannot stand behind. If a factual statement depends on your personal circumstances, check it carefully before submission.

No. Select only the issues that genuinely concern you and are relevant to the proposal. A shorter representation focused on issues that matter to you can be more useful than selecting every available section without considering whether it applies.

Planning decisions are based on relevant evidence, policy and material considerations, not simply on the number of headings included in a representation.

Yes, where the campaign form provides an appropriate field. Local knowledge can be useful when it relates to a planning issue, for example regular flooding, road conditions, use of a path, local landscape experience, noise conditions, wildlife observations or how a place is actually used.

Be precise. Explain what you have observed, where, how often and why it is relevant. Avoid presenting assumptions as established facts. Personal information should only be included where you are comfortable with it potentially forming part of a public planning record.

Email verification helps confirm that the person using the platform has access to the email address they supplied. It also helps reduce automated submissions, accidental misuse and obvious duplicate activity.

Where a verification code is used, use the most recent code sent to you. If you request another code, an earlier code may no longer work. Check your spam or junk folder and confirm that the email address was entered correctly.

No. Verification is a security control and Support should not provide a user’s verification code or manually bypass the verification step simply because someone asks. If verification fails, check the email address, use the latest code, check spam or junk folders and wait if a rate limit has been triggered.

Never send your verification code to another person or include it in a support ticket.

The platform may temporarily rate-limit further verification attempts. This is a security and anti-abuse measure. If the limit is triggered, stop requesting additional codes and wait for the stated lockout period before trying again.

Repeatedly requesting new codes can also invalidate older codes, so always use the newest email you received.

No. ObjectNow helps people prepare and submit representations, but it cannot control the decision. The decision maker must apply the relevant legal and policy framework and decide what weight to give the evidence and material considerations.

A large number of objections can demonstrate public concern, but planning decisions are not normally a simple vote. The content and relevance of representations matter.

Generally, no. Planning and infrastructure decisions are not referendums. Decision makers consider the substance of representations alongside the development plan, national policy, technical evidence, consultation responses and other legally relevant considerations.

A large volume of representations may demonstrate the scale of public concern, but repeated or identical points do not automatically acquire greater planning weight simply because they are repeated many times.

Normally, no. Repeatedly sending the same representation can create duplicate records without adding new evidence. If the authority invites comments on new or additional information, or the proposal materially changes, a further representation may be appropriate if it addresses that new material.

Keep any confirmation or reference you receive after submitting. If you are unsure whether a submission arrived, check the relevant authority’s portal or contact the authority rather than repeatedly resubmitting identical text.

Publication is controlled by the receiving authority, not ObjectNow. Authorities may moderate personal data, process submissions in batches, operate publication backlogs or publish representations in a combined document. Some systems also show consultees and public representations differently.

A delay in publication does not by itself prove that a representation was not received. Retain any submission confirmation and follow the case-specific instructions if you need to check receipt.

Submission arrangements vary by campaign and by the receiving authority. Some campaigns support a direct submission workflow. Others may require the user to complete a final step on an official portal or follow specific instructions because the authority controls how representations must be lodged.

Always follow the confirmation screen and campaign-specific instructions. A generated representation is not necessarily the same thing as a completed submission.

Keep the confirmation email, reference number or screenshot provided by the receiving system. Note the consultation deadline and watch the official case page for additional information, amended documents, hearings or further consultation periods.

If the project changes materially, the authority may invite further representations. A previous objection does not always mean you will automatically be contacted about every later consultation stage.