At Nu-Wall we frequently receive enquiries from owners of houses and other buildings who are interested in retrospective application of our product; i.e. either recladding or overcladding with Nu-Wall. In many cases those making such enquiries are not totally aware of the implications of choosing one approach over the other. The purpose of this article is to offer some clarification.

Recladding of a building necessitates removal of all existing exterior cladding material, and other elements such as windows and doors, in preparation for installation of the new material. This approach would be considered mandatory for any building which has known or suspected issues relating to weathertightness as it is the only way in which remedial work can be carried out to structural framing which may have been damaged as a result of water ingress. A recladding project necessitates the granting of a Building Consent by the relevant Consenting Authority; the end result being the issuing of a Certificate of Code Compliance which essentially grants the building a clean bill of health, along with documented evidence of the work carried out. There are additional benefits to embarking upon such a project; e.g. facilitating the incorporation of more extensive additions, alterations or modifications to the original design or in the case of older buildings, installing insulation. While it is often not necessary to vacate a building during recladding, the works involved are obviously quite disruptive to the occupants.

Overcladding of a building can be described as a cosmetic makeover, there being no necessity to remove existing cladding or other elements of the building envelope. A straightforward overcladding project would in most cases not require a Building Consent. Less disruptive and much less expensive than recladding, overcladding offers no opportunity to improve the building beyond a freshening of its appearance and, in the case of overcladding with Nu-Wall, an exterior finish which will be more durable and easier to maintain into the future. The major disadvantage to overcladding, when compared with recladding, is that it does not provide any path to Building Code compliance, which would be an absolute necessity in restoring value to a building which has been the subject of weathertightness issues. Even where no such issues have been confirmed as existing, there would be high potential for the building’s value to be compromised at some future time, should the question arise as to why the overcladding was carried out; i.e. what’s going on underneath the new cladding?

Summary –

There are many advantages arising out of choosing to reclad, rather than overclad a building –

1. The new cladding installation (and all other work) is carried out in accordance with a Building Consent which has been granted under current building regulations, which are much more comprehensive in matters relating to weathertightness than they were in the past.
2. Gaining a Certificate of Code Compliance, along with documented evidence of the remedial works completed; these being of immeasurable value to a future prospective purchaser of the building.
3. The absolute confidence that any structural elements which have been damaged by water ingress have been identified and repaired or replaced.
4. Provides the opportunity to bring insulation up to standard or in many cases to fit insulation where none has been fitted. Insulation was not required until 1979.
5. Facilitates carrying out other improvements concurrently; e.g. extension, re-modelling.

Aside from the potential to be more disruptive than overcladding, the only significant disadvantage to recladding is that the required level of investment would be much higher.

Conversely, the only real advantages to overcladding are a lower cost and the fact that the work can usually be carried out without a Building Consent. The end result, however, falls far short of that achieved by recladding, realising none of the advantages listed above. Perhaps the most compelling issue is that of the impact of the decided course of action upon the future value of the building in the event that the owner wishes to sell it.