XA: if the CAA's quote of you is no more than someone's precis of a memory of a phone conversation then that surely doesn't meet the terms of CAP 724/725. But if it's something you gave them in writing then it's rather more problematic. It seems you told them - perhaps on the basis of scant information - that you had no problem with the TMZ proposal, and you didn't anticipate that your members would take a different view. But if the consultation was primarily by phone that suggests that the CAA/NATS decided that since it was such a small area for such a short period it wasn't worth consulting more extensively. That is rather worrying because this and the Stansted TMZ consultations appear to be challenging the long-standing practice that unknown primary returns under CTAs and airways are deemed to be vertically separated from traffic inside CAS, but doing so without expressly challenging the policy.
NS