Clear more traffic through your airspace. If you have a reputation of telling traffic to remain clear, they will go round the airspace, increasing the chance of a bust.
Not always possible. It's therefore a good idea for the pilot to plan an alternative route in case that happens (read my answer re: "head flying" at the start of this thread)
Provide more radar services so you can proactively manage traffic close to your airspace and make sure pilots know they can get it.
Nice idea - and you'd fund it with.................what? (or should that be by who? A very thorny subject indeed). I shan't even mention how you would staff it (30% shortfall in ATCO's Europewide I believe).
Charts. They are just an OS road map with some aviation stuff overlaid. Cluttered with detail that is of no use, for instance don't need every country lane on a VFR chart. Put only relevant info on charts and should make it easier to visually navigate around airspace.
Don't know what you're using. But the standard ICAO 1:500,000 chart doesn't come anywhere near what you're describing
Airspace. Not designed with VFR traffic in mind. Boundaries of any airspace at an airport with a VOR on or near it should be based upon clearly visible surface features, DME arcs, or VOR radials.
Why should it be? Controlled Airspace (which is what you are referring to) is designed for the protection of IFR traffic inbound and outbound IFR and as such is designed with that purpose in mind. Yes, in an ideal world it would follow the U.S model of being based on an "on airport" VOR/DME facility but with the lack of such a facility on many european airfield that's hardly a possibility. With the gradual retirement of ground based aids in the next 20-30 years it's not exactly sensible (or sound fiscal planning) to start basing airspace construction on facilities whose years are numbered.