Tweet
Even if you own a monolithic clad home that is on all accounts the same condition brick one down the road; it isn’t a leaky home, and your cladding met its minimum durability of a measly 15 years, you will still be forced to rebuild the majority of your home at some point much earlier than you should.
The cladding was never designed to last anywhere near as long as the rest of your home (50 years minimum) and you can't just replace the cladding because the 2004 New Zealand Building Code won't let you.... it doesn't matter what condition your home is in.
The building code was changed in 2004 because the old one failed. The new one means you have to basically rebuild your house rather than replace the cladding. We are talking treated timber, concrete nibs, different windows, different or new flashings, new decks even if they are ok, and so on = minimum $150,000. Even if your home is in perfect condition, is dry and its only 16 years old!!
This might make sense to you: You cannot remove any cladding or other product and replace it with a similar product if it has failed to reach its minimum durability i.e. leaked. Instead you have to gain council approval and build everything to the newest building code requirements. The problem with that is; the new code is so different from the old one that you will basically have to rebuild your home (leaky building syndrome rebuild).
This might NOT make sense to you: Just like above; you cannot remove cladding and replace it even if it HAS met its minimum durability of 15 years and your home is proved to be leak free! Instead you have to gain council approval and everything needs to be up to the new building code just like above.
Lets run through this scenario: You built a house with monolithic cladding; its a singled level home with a concrete tile roof, you got a good builder and tradespeople and the council signed it off, you have been diligent with your maintenance. Your home has been checked and it does not have leaky building syndrome. The cladding has meets it minimum durability and you would like to change the cladding on its 17th birthday. After all it wasn’t designed to last as long as the rest of the house so was always going to need replacing = rebuild $150,000 minimum.
Does this seem as stupid to you as it does to me??
The cladding was never designed to last anywhere near as long as the rest of your home (50 years minimum) and you can't just replace the cladding because the 2004 New Zealand Building Code won't let you.... it doesn't matter what condition your home is in.
The building code was changed in 2004 because the old one failed. The new one means you have to basically rebuild your house rather than replace the cladding. We are talking treated timber, concrete nibs, different windows, different or new flashings, new decks even if they are ok, and so on = minimum $150,000. Even if your home is in perfect condition, is dry and its only 16 years old!!
This might make sense to you: You cannot remove any cladding or other product and replace it with a similar product if it has failed to reach its minimum durability i.e. leaked. Instead you have to gain council approval and build everything to the newest building code requirements. The problem with that is; the new code is so different from the old one that you will basically have to rebuild your home (leaky building syndrome rebuild).
This might NOT make sense to you: Just like above; you cannot remove cladding and replace it even if it HAS met its minimum durability of 15 years and your home is proved to be leak free! Instead you have to gain council approval and everything needs to be up to the new building code just like above.
Lets run through this scenario: You built a house with monolithic cladding; its a singled level home with a concrete tile roof, you got a good builder and tradespeople and the council signed it off, you have been diligent with your maintenance. Your home has been checked and it does not have leaky building syndrome. The cladding has meets it minimum durability and you would like to change the cladding on its 17th birthday. After all it wasn’t designed to last as long as the rest of the house so was always going to need replacing = rebuild $150,000 minimum.
Does this seem as stupid to you as it does to me??
Comment