Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree here since for me the ruling demonstrates one of the many issues that lead to trees being removed for no good reason. The commissioner back flips on the previous rulings he made with regards QTRA as an assessment system, he demonstartes a complete lack of understanding of the risk assessment process with regards trees generally and in relation to the mechanics of probalistic risk assessment specifically.
The evidence from Mr Nicolle is given greater creedence due to his PhD, and his being an acknowledged expert on Euc sps.
The PhD only demonstrates his ability to stay on at Uni for 10 or more years, problems with getting assignments completed on time me thinks.....as for the acknowledged expert status well cuts no ice with me since this expert still trots out the dog eared nonsense about certain species being prone to dropping limbs suddenly ie without cause or explaination...not an arguement I subscribe to at all.
The Goode decision is very dissapointing for a great number of reasons not least the above mentioned points, but also we get more unsubstantiated tripe about the role of one tree in the subsidence observed in adjacent buildings....wish I had a PhD or a doctorate degree maybe it would reduce the amount of evidence and support I have to provide for my limited specific conclusions in the reports I write week in and week out. Every situation is different, and demands the proper degree of examination before placing blame on the tree for subsidence, measuring relative soil moisture levels requires more than two or three test bores, even reactive clays are not all the same the nature of the chemical composition of the clay molecules plays a massive role in the way in which the clay responds to changing moisture levels, as does the physical structure of the soil its plasticity. I don't see anything in the court record that convinces me that Dr Mitchell's evidence outweighs Mr Nash's, except of course that the commisioner already seems to have made up his mind about the tree being the cause and the cracking bieng more than what you would expect to see in a house of that age on such soils tree or no tree.
The commissioner would do well to aquaint himself with this little known Arborist from the UK and maybe spend some of his not unsubstantial wage on the book and perhaps read it and learn something about the complexity in the relationship between vegetation and soil and moisture and subsidence.
http://www.willowmead.co.uk/
OK rant over.