Well the Goode case was interesting as it came in at the subsidence angle, damage to property is what tilted the scales.
I always maintain that the right of way with trees is people and property.
With regard to the people angle they were concerned but borderline, then when the house was cracking and the soil expert concluded in his findings that trees were the major culprit the judge conceded.
An in Adelaide soil a 1m DBH and 20m tall euc will suck a lot of water out of the ground. However, in the first example I put up (1st post) the tree was retained and foundations altered to accommodate, so that guy is hanging around a while.
Interesting, I dont think root barrier would be effective at reducing subsidence anyway. The soil one side of the barrier would be contracting the other side expanding and the barrier would flex and move allowing soil movement. |