Mach Jump you’re not being cynical just ill-informed.
Tag seem to be going out of their way to enable everyone to have their say, and may be perfectly genuine in doing so, but watch out for a technique I have seen used succesfully before in the quest for large chunks of Class D airspace. (And wind turbine farms.)
The process for establishing any CAS is documented in CAP725 if you would care to peruse it and educate yourself. It’s not a riveting read but woe betide any Operator (to use your incorrect phrase) that doesn’t comply with it, fully; but it does outline the 'technique' that you refer to.
First, the Operator publishes a proposal for the introduction of what appears to many to be an excessive ammount of Class D airspace.
First the Operator has to produce a basic proposal that is compliant with the numerous, equally riveting ICAO docs, Annexes, IFP design criteria, EASA publications, UK CAPs, UK CAA policy statements and UK derogations (filed differences) – containment of IFPs is a major datum setter. This results in the (usually) overly large initial design that you refer to; but it is at least compliant with aeronautical REGULATIONS; you must have heard of those, other types of REGULATION probably apply to your aeroplane too. The proposal is then exposed to the CAA at a Framework Briefing who tell you – at length – how to conduct the process including the phenomenal level of detail required and the consultation requirements.
The initial design is then usually submitted to Focus Group scrutiny. The composition of Focus Groups is detailed in the CAP725; they can’t include everyone. The 'starter for 10' design is reviewed in the light of the inputs received and those inputs that are capable of mitigation against the aforementioned aeronautical REGULATIONS are assimilated into the design. All the changes have to be documented as to why they’ve been made. This takes time as safety arguments have to be marshalled, REGULATIONS consulted again and again to ensure that the CAA doesn’t laugh when the Operator submits the final proposal with so many REGULATORY non-compliances as to lose all credibility.
The Operator then carries out an extensive consultation bending over backwards to ensure everyone has the opportunity to air their views by allowing an extended period for submissions, accepting submissions by all known means of communication, and advertising the invitation for submissions widely, even writing to likely objectors to encourage them to participate. This process results in a huge number of objections, and gives the impression that the Operator is a caring, considerate neighbour.
The revised proposal from the Focus Group stage goes out to extensive consultation as you say. The minimum consultation period is 12 weeks – that’s a quarter of a year; if a PH is included in that period then more time has to be allowed, usually an extra week for each PH day. The manner and depth of the consultation is as ‘advised’ by the CAA and the Operator had better hue to that advice. As you rightly say the Interested Bodies (in PC speak “Stakeholders”), having been whipped up their respective lobby groups, object in their hundreds frequently saying ‘we haven’t been consulted on this!’ The CAA, btw, takes no part in the design or consultation process so there’s no point in responding there.
Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.
Not a bit of it. Having received a huge number (your words) of objections (many of which regurgitate the same thing) I imagine that it takes a bit of time to catalogue them (yes, the CAA will check when the Operator submits – they all have to be presented [even the abusive ones] and cross-referenced in true bureaucratic style) and all the salient inputs extracted and addressed. However, if the Operator receives 200 objections all saying the same thing, that becomes one item to address, not 200! That’s not doing anything underhand, it’s a statement of fact.
The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.
The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Well, actually no. Inevitably, there are usually very reasonable cases made during the consultation and all objections have to be addressed and either accommodated, if all possible, or explanations detailed as to why not – usually REGULATORY non-compliance where acceptable mitigation is not available. This takes time, as agreements have to made, viable compromises have to be sought, more safety assessments conducted and arguments for non-compliance against those pesky REGULATIONS marshalled, and it all has to be documented. There is no requirement for a second round of consultation (many believe the Focus Group stage is a first round consultation but it’s usually aimed locally to wring out the initial shortcomings), unless something really major results from the consultation requiring a wholesale change, but usually a report on the consultation is issued.
Only then does the Operator submit the case to the CAA for their inspection and arbitration – another 12-week period. If the arguments are not presented convincingly, facts incorrect, or the consultation flawed or inputs not addressed sympathetically, then the case fails. The CAA is an independent arbiter on CAS applications and do not have the wool pulled over their eyes readily.
Or you can go on believing its done on the back of a fag packet and agreed in smoke-filled rooms.