East Walker Street Modification 5 - Construction Hours

I object to the Application from East Walker 88 Development Pty Ltd (Modification 5) on the following grounds:

1. The Applicant (apparently on behalf of ALAND Developments) has already begun extended construction work utilising more than the extended hours requested in this application. Yesterday evening (14/07/2026), construction work under spotlights continued from 6:15pm until 10:00pm. This work appeared to be 'finishing' of an extensive area of concrete apparently laid during the day. The mobile spotlights remained on for an extended time, possibly a security measure. This exceeded the Applicant's proposed modification to 9:00pm.

Unless an approval has already been given to the Applicant but somehow not communicated to immediate and affected residents, it seems to us a complete subversion and mockery of the compliance process seeking consent to a temporary extension of construction hours.
Note: I took numerous photographs of yesterday evening's work in progress and notes of the work. I shall attempt to attach these to this submission but I may not have the technology skills to achieve this. The photographs are available if required via email to a Dept of Planning nominated email address.

2. The Application does not state a timeframe for the extended hours requested. Apparently this information is not available at this stage. In order for local residents to 'Have your say' and be fully informed, we consider Start and End dates should have been stated in the Application for Proposed Modification for Temporary Extension of Hours. As it stands, the Application appears to be open ended. Potentially the substantial increase of 20 hours weekly could become very extended. How temporary is temporary?

In our view the Applicant/ALAND has already been granted very generous hours of work. The existing approval totals 55 hours per week including 5 hours on Saturdays.

3. Local residents, particularly those adjacent to the East Walker Street development suffered extremely disruptive and almost continual noise from around mid-January 2026 to around April 2026. This was during the excavation phase of work. The noise levels were extremely excessive, notwithstanding that the Applicant/ALAND stated they had noise monitors along the boundary line of their project. The massive noise from rock breaking, heavy drilling, crashing of loads of rocks being tipped into metal based trucks was horrendous as four very large earthmoving machines worked to excavate to a depth of four levels of basement. Respite breaks appeared to be brief and infrequent, with no clear pattern of timing.

As a purely personal view I, and my husband Gary Cook, consider the disruptive effects of this constant, significant noise were substantially detrimental to our health and wellbeing, and our ability to use our main bedroom (noting Gary Cook was undergoing radiation treatment for cancer during March and needed daytime rest), and I Rosemary was unable to work in our home office without constantly wearing industrial noise cancelling head phones.
We are aware of numerous other examples of local residents within 171 Walker Street who were severely detrimentally impacted by these works and whose ability to go about their normal work and home routines was severely disrupted.

4. As our own personal view, it seems to us the Applicant/ALAND has made a barely minimal effort to engage with the local community, extend any empathy, and provide specific, regular information eg works scheduled for the next 2 weeks.

5. In conclusion we do not support the Applicant's Proposal for Temporary Modification of Construction Hours by an additional 20 hours per week. In our view, the Applicant has been granted very generous construction hours which total 55 hours per week. Work to date has imposed substantial disruption, frustration and annoyance on the immediate local community. To grant a temporary extension to add a further 20 hours per week for an unknown timeframe is totally unacceptable. We see the request as harsh and unconscionable.
With courtesy and respect, we request that the Application from East Walker 88 Development Pty Ltd be declined.
From Rosemary Heal on behalf of Rosemary Heal and Gary Cook

I am disappointed to hear the developers wish to extend their work hours. I live next door at 171 Walker Street and already we have been subjected to loud noises and excavation works for over 6 months to get to this stage and i think it is highly inappropriate and thoughtless that the developers want to extend their work hours as suggested creating noise and lights late into the evening when families and elderly people are strung to settle down for the evening. I would sincerely hope this isn’t allowed.

I am writing as an owner and resident at M01 "McLaren Apartments", 37–39 McLaren Street, North Sydney, in the immediate vicinity of the above site, to formally object to the modification application referenced above ("the Mod 5 Application"). The Mod 5 Application seeks to extend approved construction hours on the site from 7:00am–5:00pm to 7:00am–9:00pm, and to permit concrete pours to occur on an occasional basis within this extended window.
For the reasons below, I submit the Mod 5 Application should be refused, or, if approved, made subject to the conditions in Section 6.
1. Standing and context
My home is located in the immediate vicinity of the site, within direct line of sound of construction activity at 173–179 Walker Street and 11–17 Hampden Street. I am already contending with a separate, unresolved noise compliance matter concerning Reddam House North Sydney (DA 269/23, SSD-46014456), currently before North Sydney Council's Building Compliance team. The cumulative effect of concurrent, extended-hours construction and school operational noise on the same residential pocket is a matter the Department should weigh directly in its assessment, and one I am experiencing first-hand, not hypothetically.
The original SSD-67175465 application also attracted substantial community and Council objection on traffic and congestion grounds, centred on the constrained Walker Street/Hampden Street/Berry Street intersection, the dead-end Hampden Street configuration, and nearby traffic generators (Reddam House, Aqualand, and 45 McLaren Street). Those constraints remain unresolved and are more acute in 2026 than at exhibition in 2024.
2. The application discloses no volume or vehicle-movement data — it cannot be properly assessed
A threshold difficulty with the Mod 5 Application is that it does not specify the volume of concrete proposed per out-of-hours pour, the number of pours anticipated over the balance of construction, or the number of agitator, pump and support-vehicle movements each pour would generate on Walker Street or Hampden Street.
This is not a minor omission. The scale of noise, vibration, diesel exhaust, and queuing/reversing-vehicle impact from a single-storey slab pour differs materially from a full basement or podium-level pour, which on a site this size could require a continuous queue of agitator trucks over several hours. Without stated maximum volume, movements and frequency figures, neither I, Council, nor the Department can properly assess the real impact of what is being sought — the application effectively asks for open-ended discretion to conduct out-of-hours works of unspecified scale, as often as the applicant judges necessary.
I submit that the Department should decline to determine the Mod 5 Application until the applicant has publicly disclosed: (a) the anticipated maximum concrete volume per out-of-hours pour; (b) the anticipated number of truck movements (agitator, pump, and ancillary) generated per pour; and (c) the anticipated total number and frequency of out-of-hours pours for the remaining construction programme. Absent this information, any approval would not be a genuinely informed exercise of the Department's discretion under the EP&A Act.
3. The proposed hours are inconsistent with the applicable noise guideline
The NSW EPA's Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG, 2009) identifies standard construction hours as Monday to Friday 7:00am–6:00pm and Saturday 8:00am–1:00pm, with no work on Sundays or public holidays. Work outside these hours is only appropriate where the proponent can demonstrate, among other things, that no feasible or reasonable alternative work method exists, that the community has been consulted and impacts are genuinely minor, and that real-time attended monitoring will verify compliance with the relevant noise management levels.
Extending standard hours by a further four hours each evening, to 9:00pm, is a substantial departure from the ICNG benchmark. Concrete pours in particular are inherently high-noise, high-vehicle-movement activities (pumping plant, agitator truck queuing and reversing beepers, vibration compaction) that are difficult to reconcile with the ICNG's "respite period" expectations for a dense residential locality such as this.
I am not aware of any evidence in the Mod 5 Application demonstrating that a genuine construction methodology constraint (as opposed to programme or cost convenience) necessitates evening pours, and submit that the Department should require this justification to be tested before any variation is granted.
4. Environmental impact
The environmental impact of this proposal extends well beyond noise. Concrete agitator trucks, pump trucks and support vehicles are predominantly diesel-powered and generate significant exhaust emissions — oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and greenhouse gases — which are concentrated at idle while trucks queue for access to a constrained site. Shifting these movements into the evening does not reduce this burden; it relocates it into hours when residents, including children, are at home with windows open and outdoor areas in use, rather than at work or school.
• Queuing and idling agitator trucks on Walker Street and Hampden Street will increase localised air pollution (NOx and PM2.5/PM10) in a densely populated residential precinct, with direct exposure to residents at street level and in ground- and lower-floor apartments.
• Concrete pumping and washout activity carries its own emissions and waste-water/runoff risks if conducted outside standard daylight supervision hours, when compliance oversight is typically reduced.
• Extending the working day increases the site's total diesel plant runtime (generators, pumps, lighting towers required for evening works), adding to the cumulative greenhouse gas and air quality burden of the project without any corresponding environmental offset being proposed.
• These impacts compound — rather than substitute for — the daytime environmental burden already approved, given the application does not propose to reduce daytime hours in exchange for the evening extension.
None of these environmental impacts appear to have been quantified in the Mod 5 Application, which reinforces the disclosure gap raised in Section 2 above.
5. Impact on the quiet enjoyment of homes
The extension sought strikes directly at the ordinary use and enjoyment of nearby homes during exactly the hours residents most rely on for rest, family life and recovery from the working day. Under the existing consent, residents can reasonably plan their evenings — dinner, children's homework and bedtime routines, winding down, and sleep preparation — on the basis that construction activity ceases at 5:00pm. An approval to work until 9:00pm removes that certainty entirely, and does so unevenly and unpredictably, given pours are described as "occasional" rather than scheduled.
• High-noise activity until 9:00pm is incompatible with settling young children, and with the ordinary expectation of a quiet evening at home that residents are entitled to under the current consent.
• The unpredictability of "occasional" out-of-hours pours means residents cannot plan around them — unlike a fixed, published construction hours regime, they have no ability to arrange to be away, close windows in advance, or otherwise mitigate impact, because they will not know in advance which evenings will be affected.
• Sleep disruption from evening construction noise has well-established flow-on effects on health, concentration and wellbeing, particularly for children, shift workers, and older residents — effects which are cumulative if repeated over the life of the construction programme.
• The amenity impact is compounded, not isolated, given residents in this precinct are already absorbing noise impacts from the adjacent Reddam House operations and other concurrent nearby construction sites. The Department should consider the total noise burden on this pocket of North Sydney, not this application in isolation.
In short, the proposal asks residents to trade a settled, predictable evening for the applicant's construction efficiency, without having disclosed the scale of works involved or offering any commensurate benefit to the community bearing the impact.
6. Conditions requested in the event of any approval
Should the Department nonetheless be minded to approve some variation, I request that any consent modification include, at minimum:
• Public disclosure, prior to any determination, of the maximum concrete volume, maximum truck movements, and maximum frequency of out-of-hours pours proposed, so the true scale of impact can be assessed;
• A hard cap on the number of out-of-hours concrete pours permitted per month, with each requiring prior written notification to Council and to directly affected residents at least 5 business days in advance;
• A requirement for independent, real-time attended acoustic monitoring during every out-of-hours pour, with results provided to Council within 24 hours, consistent with the verification approach I have separately sought in respect of the Reddam House ONMP compliance matter;
• A defined absolute cut-off (no work of any kind, including truck movements, wash-down or clean-up, beyond 9:00pm) with financial penalties or suspension of the out-of-hours privilege for breaches;
• An updated Construction Traffic Management Plan specifically addressing evening truck movements, queuing, and swept-path conflicts at the Walker Street/Hampden Street/Berry Street intersection; and
• Exclusion of Fridays, the day before public holidays, and any date coinciding with known high-traffic-generating events at nearby schools, from the extended-hours allowance.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this submission further and can be contacted via the details
below.
Yours faithfully,

R Cunniappen

"SUBMISSION: OBJECTION TO MODIFICATION APPLICATION
Application Number: SSD-67175465-Mod-5
Project: East Walker Street, North Sydney (Construction Hours Modification)
Submitted by: Resident directly adjoining the site (submitter details provided via Planning Portal submission)
Date: 16 July 2026
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to object in the strongest terms to Modification 5 of SSD-67175465, which seeks to extend construction hours to 9pm to accommodate concrete pouring. I urge the Department to refuse this application, for the following reasons.
1. The applicant is already conducting works beyond current hours, for the very activity this modification seeks to extend.
On Tuesday 14 July 2026, at approximately 6:22pm, during the exhibition period of this modification, I personally observed and recorded machinery conducting concrete finishing works (mechanical smoothing/trowelling) at the site, beyond the currently approved construction hours. I hold time-stamped video and photographic evidence, recorded from my residence directly overlooking the site, which I will provide to the Department on request. The recording also captures my infant son's distress at the noise, audible throughout. This demonstrates that the applicant is already scheduling concrete works it cannot complete within its approved hours, and simply running past the cutoff. That is precisely the conduct this modification now asks the Department to legitimise. Whether characterised as pouring or as finishing, the works were generating significant noise outside approved hours, metres from residential bedrooms. An applicant already operating beyond its conditions during the exhibition of an application to extend those same conditions cannot reasonably be trusted to observe any limit placed on an extension. A formal compliance complaint regarding this matter is being lodged separately.
2. My household's direct exposure is severe.
My bedroom and my infant son's nursery windows face directly onto this construction site. The drilling into sandstone has been genuinely unbearable; the only day of the week our home is liveable is Sunday. My wife and infant son have endured this at close range, day after day. We cannot open our windows on the construction-facing side of our unit due to dust, and cannot open them on the opposite side due to the concurrent Warringah Freeway and Western Harbour Tunnel works. The construction dust has now coated our bedroom window so heavily that it is almost impossible to see out of, and because of the works there is no safe landing position for abseil window cleaners to access it, so it cannot even be cleaned. I have already undertaken every mitigation available to me at my own expense: air purifiers and dehumidifiers to maintain safe air quality, and noise-blocking curtains installed across both the main bedroom and nursery windows and walls. Even with these measures in place, the noise remains unbearable and my family is unable to sleep through it. Nor can we resort to earplugs or similar personal measures, as parents of an infant must be able to hear and wake for our child. My household is living with no natural light through the primary bedroom window, no ability to ventilate the home from either side, and near-constant construction noise six days a week that"

"defeats every reasonable mitigation available to us. These are basic conditions of habitable housing, and this project has progressively stripped all of them from my household. Extending works to 9pm, into the hours when households with infants are settling children for the night, would materially worsen an already unacceptable situation. I note, as a medical practitioner, that the adverse health effects of chronic sleep disruption and sustained environmental noise exposure, including on mental health and on infant and child development, are well established in the medical literature and underpin WHO environmental noise guidance. The conditions my household is living under are not a matter of mere annoyance; they are recognised risk factors for genuine harm, and extending noisy works into the evening settling and sleep period would directly intensify that exposure.
3. I hold further evidence of non-compliance with dust suppression obligations.
I hold video documentation of the construction team failing to apply water suppression during works in circumstances that plainly warranted it. Drilling into sandstone at this site has, in my direct experience living metres from it, produced noise and vibration inconsistent with the levels this consent was assessed against. This evidence is likewise available to the Department on request.
4. The cumulative construction-phase impacts of concurrent projects were never assessed, despite the roadworks predating this approval.
The Warringah Freeway Upgrade and Western Harbour Tunnel works were approved in January 2021 and under construction from March 2021, more than three years before this project's EIS was exhibited in July 2024. The Department's own assessment requirements mandate consideration of cumulative impacts from concurrent projects. Yet while cumulative traffic impacts were addressed, at no point was the cumulative construction-phase impact (simultaneous noise, dust, and loss of ventilation from two directions at once) assessed for residents positioned, as my household is, between both projects. My family is living through precisely the compounding impact that omission failed to anticipate. Granting extended hours would deepen an impact the assessment process never properly weighed in the first place.
5. This development proceeded over the objection of North Sydney Council.
This project was rejected by North Sydney Council and proceeded only through state-level approval. The community has already been overridden once on this project. To now erode the standard-hours protection that formed part of the basis on which approval was granted would compound that imposition on residents who were given no effective say.
6. No case of necessity has been made.
The application offers no substantive justification for why standard hours are insufficient, nor evidence that staging, scheduling, or additional resourcing within approved hours was genuinely considered. The onus for an hours extension rests on the applicant to demonstrate exceptional necessity. None has been demonstrated, and the applicant's conduct on 14 July suggests the operative approach is to schedule concrete works without regard to the approved cutoff and seek permission afterwards.
For these reasons, I request the Department refuse Modification 5 in its entirety. There is no version of this application that should be approved. An applicant that breaches its existing hours condition during the exhibition of an application to extend those same hours has forfeited any basis on which the Department could be satisfied of future compliance. The"

"appropriate response to demonstrated non-compliance is enforcement, not reward.
I intend to pursue every formal avenue available regarding the conduct of this project, including compliance complaints, requests for independent audit, and referral to oversight bodies as the evidence warrants, and I ask that this submission be read in that light.
Yours faithfully,
[Submitter details provided via Planning Portal submission]"

I object to the proposed variation to construction hours, namely extending the work period from 5pm to 9pm for up to 30 days to enable pouring of concrete. When this proposal was initially made, and noting it was made by an experienced developer, the concrete pour was able to be undertaken in normal business hours. I see no reason that this needs to now change, other than to enable a more convenient schedule for the developer and builder - the impact by way of extending a further 4 hours until 9.00pm an unacceptable inconvenience of noise pollution and road blockages to the local residents.

The noise of this project has already impacted daily life with WFH extremely challenging due to the excess noise of construction within the street. An extension of working hours further impacts daily life with bedrooms closest to the building site. Any noise will impact children's sleep patterns and should not be allowed. If allowed to proceed, compensation for local residents must be included, similar to other projects within the area that have required after hours work on certain occasions.

I object to this modification to extend construction hours until 9:00 pm.
My family lives directly opposite the construction site, and the extended hours would have a significant impact on our daily lives. Construction noise already causes major disruption, and allowing work to continue into the evening would seriously affect our children's ability to study, complete homework, and get adequate rest.
In addition to the noise, the bright construction lighting at night shines directly towards our home, creating further disturbance and making it difficult for our family to enjoy a normal living environment.
Extending construction until 9:00 pm on up to 30 occasions is unreasonable for nearby residents. The existing approved construction hours should be maintained to protect the health, wellbeing, and quality of life of families living in the surrounding area.
I respectfully request that this modification be refused.
The proposed extension places an unfair burden on local residents, particularly families with young children and school-aged students. Residents should not be expected to tolerate excessive evening noise and lighting after normal construction hours.

It is creating alot of disturbances already, I object the extented hours. I am a nurse and work nightshifts, can’t even rest during the day.

I object this proposal as it is already making a lot of disturbance in my family. My baby is very hard to sleep during the day.

I am a resident living in close proximity to the East Walker Street development and I object to the proposed Modification 5 seeking to extend construction hours to 9pm Monday to Friday for concrete pours.

The site is already generating sustained noise and vibration impacts during approved construction hours. From 7am daily, construction noise regularly commences at a level that disturbs sleep and wakes residents, followed by continuous high intensity activities including heavy machinery use, jackhammering, and concrete works. These impacts accumulate throughout the day, resulting in a compounding noise environment with limited respite during approved hours.

These impacts are audible within nearby residences and are at times accompanied by perceptible vibration. Construction activity also generates dust affecting residential living areas.

The proposed extension would further prolong high noise construction activities into evening periods when residential amenity expectations are higher and recovery from daytime impacts is typically required.

While the application indicates the extension would apply on approximately 30 occasions for concrete pours and finishing works, these activities involve continuous high noise operations including concrete pumping, heavy vehicle movements, and associated plant.

The proposal is not consistent with reasonable residential amenity expectations or standard construction noise management principles, which generally seek to limit high impact works to daytime periods and minimise sleep disturbance and cumulative impacts.

For these reasons, I do not support the modification and request it be refused. Construction should remain within the currently approved hours of 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday.

North Sydney has had a lot of major work carried out over the last 5 years the noise and traffic have made it difficult for residents. However we know that at 5pm the work ceases and we have a bit of peace. The traffic in Walker and McLaren Street has increased dramatically over this time and again after 6:30pm it settles down with the workers having left the area.
The proposal deems that the area will be subjected to more noise and traffic until after 9 pm, as usually after a pour there is the cleanup, packing up, and leaving the area.
The recent building of 168 Walker Street, consisting of four towers and approximately 400 apartments never required the need to pour concrete until 9pm at night.
There are two other large building sites within 300m of the 173-179 Walker Street, will this approval set a precedent for these other sites (52 and 45 McLaren Streets) to also request pourings until 9pm at night?
I consider that the traffic, noise and lighting created by this application is a burden on the local community that is not warranted. Should the community have to shoulder the builders cost cutting measures?

I need a proper rest after work, the construction going till 9pm significantly impacts my personal life.

I object to the requested extension of working hours. The developers were aware of the requirement to work within normal working hours in this residential area and should not be allowed to vary those hours now. My bedroom is directly opposite the crane drivers seat so extending operating hours will directly impact us.

Please stop them from continuing to modify the rules toi suit them and not residents.

Thanks

There are literally hundreds of apartments overlooking this site. To extend working hours beyond what was originally approved would be highly inappropriate under the circumstances. Evening hours are a respite from all day works on the site and should be protected.

I object to the proposed extension of construction hours in my neighbourhood because it would significantly affect the quality of life for local residents. Longer construction hours would result in increased noise, dust, and disruption during the early mornings, evenings, and weekends, reducing opportunities for rest, family time, and quiet enjoyment of our homes. Extended works may also impact children’s sleep and study routines, as well as the wellbeing of shift workers, older residents, and those working from home. I believe construction should be carried out within the existing approved hours to minimise unnecessary disturbance while still allowing the project to progress.

The extended working hours of this project will adversely affect the lives and environment of nearby residents.

I strongly object to the proposed extension of construction hours.

I live in the immediate vicinity of this project, and our residential buildings are extremely close to the construction site. In addition, both buildings have large glass façades, which provide very limited protection from construction noise. Any extension of construction hours, particularly into the evening, will significantly increase the impact on residents.

The extended construction hours will expose us to prolonged noise, dust, vibration, and other disturbances during the time when residents should be able to rest. This will seriously affect our sleep, health, wellbeing, and overall quality of life. Dust generated by construction will also continue to affect our homes and balconies, creating ongoing inconvenience and potential health concerns.

Residents have already endured years of disruption from this development. It is unreasonable to expect the surrounding community to bear an even greater burden simply for the convenience of the developer. The interests of nearby residents should be given greater consideration.

I strongly oppose this modification and respectfully request that the Department reject the application and retain the current approved construction hours.

I live within close proximity to the development site, and I am supportive of the overall building project in general, but I would like to raise these concerns:

1. A 14-hour working day extending to 9pm on weeknights significantly affects residential amenity, including rest, the ability to work from home, and family routines such as children's homework and bedtime. Concrete pours typically involve continuous truck movements, pumps, and vibration for extended periods, and this impact has not been adequately addressed in the notice.

2. The notice does not identify which specific days the 30 occasions will occur on, making it impossible for nearby residents to plan around the disruption. I request that any approval require advance written notice (e.g. a minimum of 5 business days) to affected residents before each extended-hours pour.

If the modification is approved despite the above concerns, I request the following conditions be attached:
- Advance written notice to surrounding residents before each extended-hours occasion
- Independent noise monitoring during extended-hours works

Approved hours should remain as per the original approval. This site is in the middle of a high density area and evening hours should remain noise free as they currently are.

Please see attached submission and compelling reasons for an objection to the proposed modification.