I certainly do not agree with a lot of the judgement, but that is the risk of litigation. However, as often is the case, it seems to me the defendant has shot himself in the foot by unnecessarily claiming that the duration of hovering was far less than a witness presumably called on his behalf stated. Judges like nothing less than an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes, and he appears to have called their bluff in telling them they can carry on with no problems and even allow hovering for longer than currently occurs BUT we all know in reality he has called for a curtailment
The defendant will be tested at appeal to argue that being allowed MORE hovering is affecting his business. Q and others may argue their commercial operations are being affected, but they were not parties to the case.
If I were Denham I would borrow some diggers and build a slope elsewhere. Sad common sense didnt prevail before a hearing, but may be one party was not as reasonable as the judge believed...