stickandrudderman
So, starting from "a position of little sympathy" for the "arrogant and contemptuous" airfield owners, and having just recently had your hangarage peremptorily terminated by them, and as someone who is very quickly irritated even by the noise of helicopters landing, the judge's ruling was "very well thought out and pragmatic" - in your 'open minded' opinion?
Not surprisingly, people commonly praise judges' wisdom when they are pleased by decisions and regard them as out of touch fools when they don't.
A north of England judge, now retired, once told me that he always knew what the city's newspaper thought of a decision he'd made. When they approved, they used an official stock photograph of him in his working 'short' wig - much smaller than the ceremonial version. When they didn't, they used a picture snapped by a press photographer when he attended a ceremonial occasion held outdoors on a windy day which, in his words, made him look like a demented spaniel.
The photograph below is not of him but illustrates his point.
He didn't mind in the slightest. He thought it was very amusing.
So did I.
Whatever may be said, justifiably or otherwise, about the Paul family which owns Denham airfield, they have demonstrated their commitment to general aviation over many decades. I have no idea of their net earnings from the airfield but I suspect they would be much richer if, as many airfield owners around the country have done, they sold the land to developers.
Very pleasant area 40-45 minutes drive/25 minutes direct rail link from the centre of London?
What you regard as being stubborn might reasonably be regarded by others as making a stand, albeit unsuccessfully on this occasion, against Nimbyism.
As
homonculus points out, whichever way the decision went wouldn't affect their business. The adverse decision disadvantages their helicopter school tenants.