Forum Archive Index - June 2003

["tonysw" <tonysw@xtra.co.nz>]

Exactly, I really think they have lost the plot.

The basic idea is to keep the wood dry with the correct ventilation system and if by chance there is a breakdown in the cladding system, to have an effective protective system which enables this protection.

I have designed such a system, not wooden battens (could hold moisture & then rot), not metal (even galvanising breakdown after time).

And can I get assistance to get it to the next stage....NOT !

The red tape associated with BIA is absolutely hopeless. If anyone has some ideas I would be very interested.

KTm

----- Original Message -----

From: B.Bourke

To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz

Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2003 21:42 p.m.

Subject: [sharechat] Building codes revised at last by macdunk

Treated versus untreated timber.   The new proposals are to treat to what is effectively H1 level. Now anything level under H4 (and some would even say under H5) will rot if constantly wet.   All that using treated timber in the new regulations will do is to enable leaking houses to stand up for a few more years than they currently do and for all warranties and liabilities to run out. After this time the poor home owner will find that they have no claim on the builder at all.   Untreated timber was used for decades early last century - and the houses didnt leak and most of them are still standing. And none of the timbers used were naturally rot proof (as far as I know there was no Totara used in domestic house construction).   It seems amazing that it isnt obvious to the regulators that they have to regulate to stop leaks. Anyway - the chemicals used in treatment will be rulled out of internal use in a few years anyway - so then theyll have to face facts.