Not quite:
The fence was built NEAR the runway. On a piece of ground the club are legally entitled to build a fence. If the Council had realised that, they might have sought to change the conditions of tenancy before telling the CAA they were in control of things, or at least accepted the need to work WITH the people who fly the aeroplanes.
As for
Are we to read into your piece that had the Council not got involved at all, everything in the garden would have been lovely, with all the various tenants co-operating beautifully?
It would appear that £9m would have been saved and the road to the airfield would have survived. Have I got the correct message?
My suspicion is that we'd actually be somewhere in between that and where we are now. I'm basing that notion on "The Story" of Oban Airport is all about what a cluster**** the Council have made of this. I don't recall reading loads of stories in the press about how bad things were up there until they started this over ambitious throw away the money scheme.
Even their own Internal Audit people slated the "management" of the project.
Compare the situation at Oban with Cumbernauld. The landing fees at each field don't cover the cost of operating an airfield. Cumbernauld survives because it is a commercial operation, renting out hangar space and providing commercial services. Oban gets much better Reception, Fire and Fiso services because the local authority provide them from taxpayer funds.
I don't think it's too much to ask for the services to be provided in a manner that suits the users, otherwise why bother?
Let's imagine how much use there might be for a council funded, floodlight equipped, astro turf, 5 a side pitch with changing rooms and showers, where you need to wear team strips, no shouting allowed, and you need to have a council supplied Ref to administer the game. Even if it was cheap, do you really think people would be using it?