External Wood Cladding - What to use

[colin7777]

I have to use shiplap wood cladding on the external part of the building and it has to be cream colour so will need to be painted.

 

Looking for the type of wood I should use, it seems that English Larch/Douglas Fir Shiplap Cladding is the cheapest option, is this suitable or should I use a different type of wood.

 

Recommendations and where to buy would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Colin

 

 

[Tin Soldier]

If its to be painted, couldn't you get cementitious board like cedral which looks the same but doesn't need painted? 

[Visti]

siberian larch and cedar are the two most popular around us at graven hill.

 

English larch tends to be less ideal for external cladding as it is grown faster, resulting in a weaker material due to less dense growth rings. As it is already a soft wood that isn't ideal. Fir I have less experience in.

 

We used siberian larch and got it from Mill Works at £3/m IIRC (you'll want to speak with Steven), hence we went with broader profiles to save on m2 costs. they can also supply the wood pained to any RAL colour. an additional £3/m.

 

if your elevations are within 6m of your boundary (or center of the road for the elevation(s) facing the street), you'll need to consider fire protection on some or all the cladding material. thankfully this can be applied in the factory too at £3.50.

[jack]

7 hours ago, Visti said:

English larch tends to be less ideal for external cladding as it is grown faster, resulting in a weaker material due to less dense growth rings. As it is already a soft wood that isn't ideal. Fir I have less experience in.

 

We got samples of British and Siberian larch months before we need them and left them outside to see what happened. The British (Scottish, maybe?) one curled up like a leaf. The Siberian one hardly moved. We paid the extra for the Siberian and were glad we did.

[Patrick]

1 hour ago, jack said:

 

We got samples of British and Siberian larch months before we need them and left them outside to see what happened. The British (Scottish, maybe?) one curled up like a leaf. The Siberian one hardly moved. We paid the extra for the Siberian and were glad we did.

 

Paid extra?

I havent found any UK Larch anywhere near the price of siberian Larch?

Would it be of lesser quality BUT much cheaper , I could understand this, but Siberian Larch is always cheaper (at least my experience).

 

@colin7777

If you are painting anyways, go for cheap timber. The main reason people are fixated on Larch or Cedar is its durability when untreated(while still relatively cheap).

Half of Sweden using (cheap) Spruce for cladding . As long as it s painted- fine .

 

[jack]

56 minutes ago, Patrick said:

Paid extra?

 

It was nearly 5 years ago, but I'm certain we paid more for Siberian than was on offer for UK-sourced. That said, I also recall that we went for the higher grade stuff with limited knots (and maybe longer average length boards). Maybe that's where the premium was. 

 

Just looked at Russwood's site (that's where we got ours). Siberian is notably more expensive than Scottish:

 

 

That said, I can't understand why would anyone pay a premium for less dense and less durable English larch when the Siberian stuff is of notably better quality (assuming similar grade)?

[Visti]

Varsten's timber has a premium of about 6-10% on Siberian over British. Not surprising give the generally denser property and extra logistics to get it here.

 

Spruce is a good choice, but needs to be factory treated ideally in addition to paint which can negate it's affordability. Same with other types of softwoods such as fir and pine. Only larch or cedar from the softwoods can really get away with less TLC, making them a good balance between cost, longevity and maintenance.

[jack]

1 minute ago, Visti said:

Spruce is a good choice, but needs to be factory treated ideally in addition to paint which can negate it's affordability. Same with other types of softwoods such as fir and pine. Only larch or cedar from the softwoods can really get away with less TLC, making them a good balance between cost, longevity and maintenance.

 

Painting also isn't of any help if you don't want a painted finish! 

[Crofter]

Our Scottish larch was 75p/m at 100mm widths, direct from the sawmill. Substantially cheaper than any other option. If there are problems with it, I will just replace individual boards as necessary.

 

If you want a painted finish, I would definitely consider a cement fibre board- no ongoing maintenance, and should last almost indefinitely. 

[Jeremy Harris]

For environmental reasons I deliberately chose locally grown larch, and we have no regrets.  We wanted a "rustic" look (a planning requirement - it was that or mega expensive local stone cladding) and the availability of very good value, locally grown, wide board (between 250mm and 300mm board width) larch at a very affordable price was the clincher.  We paid far more for labour to cut and fix the cladding than we did for the timber.  The local sawmill (at Ansty, 3 miles away: http://ridleysawmill.co.uk/ ) had a source of locally grown larch (from Fonthill estate, about 3 miles from their sawmill) and they took us to go and see the trees before they were felled, so we could choose the trees and see them marked with our name.

 

We've had a bit of movement, and have needed to replace few fastenings, but movement has been less than we'd have had from oak, which was the only other option open to us (planners again).  The sawmill have used a lot of this locally grown larch for years, and took us to see some of their customers.  The oldest structure we saw was a ~60 year old bus shelter, clad in their larch, that still looked fine, it had just silvered to a lovely colour (IMHO).  In my view, if this local larch can last at least 60 years with no treatment, then it's good enough for me, as I won't be around in 60 years...

[AliG]

What is a reasonable price for Siberian larch fitted on battens? I am being quoted around £100 a square metre plus extra for the reveals into windows.