I personally feel that by going the direction of cracks/subsidence/soil moisture many a tree can be condemned easily by the current standard.
From that one I had it was a regimented cemented standard.
For us as arborists to contest it we'd need mountains of hard core proof and cases. I did find a South Australian 2 year test case where meters were used in a number of locations to measure the differences around trees etc ... but for some crazy reason they used sapling trees, I mean 6' tall whip sticks only a few years old which were new street plantings.
That one concluded no influence but made a special point that the trees were small and immature, so why bloody bother!
We have done volumes of work where due to engineers reports on cracked houses they have underpinned and recommended removal of all trees within 6m of the building, no BS! Try argue with that hard core profession, also then you are in breach of a standard ...
... like some-one saying AS4373 is completely incorrect and topping is better than target cutting as the tree retains more biomass (stored sugars), replaces removed foliage, auto mulches if breakouts occur and creates habitat if decay sets in. In the natural course of tree management in the bush nature actually works better than AS4373 and this can be clearly witnessed when you consistently see the heads of the taller trees blow out.
