Nick et al,
I think that Nigel has hit the nail on the head - I am only aware of one poster in this whole discussion who was asking for PC1 Operations, at MCTOM (MGM), from any site!
Nick, you have a company representative on the ICAO WG that is proposing amendments to Annex 6 to include recommendations for TAWS and ACAS; you should be aware that this was accepted by all of the regulators on the WG and only opposed (initially) by non-regulatory members (no names no pack drill). Why a recommendation? Because Annex 6 is (almost) a one size fits all document and to apply a Standard to all helicopters which are operating in CAT would have been universally opposed. For reasons that you are well aware of, the remark about European regulators smarts a little. Be prepared to see extensive improvements in the approval of Approach Procedures now that EGNOS is being used to add integrity to GPS (which was the basis of the conservatism).
Nigel, a great deal of cooperation has been achieved with OGP and they are kept aware of all the performance arguments; those members who have operations in a hostile environment are enthusiastic about PC2e because it has the potential for zero exposure to-and-from Rigs without the formality of Cat A, and without requiring the greater than 1D sizes that are presently contained in Cat A elevated heliport/helideck procedures.
Xnr, I am not intimately aware of Canadian Regulations but the obstacle clearance that you quote is built into ICAO (in fact you have omitted the divergence factor) and most other operational regulations (and of course FAR 27/29); it is not just a feature of Cat A, or related to the helipad size that you have quoted. PC1 & 2 both require this but only where an obstacle cannot be avoided laterally.
By the way, in an earlier post Helmet Fire intimated that Australia were not yet involved in the ICAO debate; not true you have had an active representative on the ICAO WG since it started its work.