Panania Station Upgrade Transport for New South Wales 01-June-2016

Panania Station Upgrade

Statement of Heritage Impact

19-Apr-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact

Statement of Heritage Impact Panania Station Upgrade

Client: Transport for New South Wales

ABN: 18 804 239 602

Prepared by

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 21, 420 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000, PO Box Q410, QVB Post Office NSW 1230, Australia T +61 2 8934 0000 F +61 2 8934 0001 www.aecom.com ABN 20 093 846 925

1-June-2016

Job No.: 60488497

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM). All rights reserved.

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact

Quality Information

Document Panania Station Upgrade

Ref 60488497

Date 1-June-2016

Prepared by Erin Finnegan

Reviewed by Luke Kirkwood

Revision History

Revision Revision Date Details Authorised Name/Position Signature

A 20-Apr-2016 Draft Luke Kirkwood Signed in original. Principal Heritage Specialist B 30-May-2016 Revision to address Luke Kirkwood TfNSW comments Principal Heritage Specialist

C 1-June-2016 Final Luke Kirkwood Principal Heritage Specialist

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact

Table of Contents Executive Summary i 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Background 1 1.2 Site Identification 2 1.3 Project Methodology 3 1.4 Report Limitations 3 2.0 Statutory Context 5 2.1 Commonwealth Legislation 5 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) 5 2.1.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth) 5 2.2 State Legislation 5 2.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) 5 2.2.2 Infrastructure SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (NSW) 5 2.2.3 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) 6 2.3 Local Government 6 2.3.1 Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 6 2.4 Summary of Statutory Controls 7 3.0 Historical Context 8 3.1 Early Settlement 8 3.2 The Coming of the Railway to East Hills 9 3.3 Development of Panania Railway Station Group 11 3.3.1 A Mid-Century Station Upgrade 11 3.3.2 Recent Change and Alterations to the Panania Station Group 13 4.0 Physical Evidence 16 4.1 Panania Station – Major Group Elements 16 4.1.1 General Overview 16 4.1.2 Platform Building (1931) 16 4.1.3 Platform (1931) 19 4.1.4 Footbridge, Stairs and Ramps (c1956) 19 4.1.5 Location Hut (c1931) 21 4.1.6 Platform Canopies (2010) 21 4.1.7 Additional elements – movable heritage 22 4.2 Comparative Analysis – Discussion of Footbridge 23 5.0 Significance Assessment 27 5.1 Introduction 27 5.2 Panania Railway Station Group 28 5.3 Grading of Significant Elements 29 6.0 Proposal description and impacts 31 6.1 Project Drivers 31 6.2 Options selection 32 6.3 The Proposal 33 6.4 Proposal Impacts 35 6.4.1 Engineering Scope 35 6.4.2 Platform Building Refurbishment 36 6.4.3 Earthworks 38 6.4.4 Ancillary facilities 38 6.5 Impacts to Heritage Significance – Panania Railway Station Group 40 6.5.1 Summary of Heritage Impacts 44 6.5.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential and Impacts 45 7.0 Statement of Heritage Impact 46 7.1 Introduction 46 7.2 Process Questions 46 7.2.1 Demolition (relating to the existing footbridge, ramps and stairs) 46 7.2.2 Major Additions (relating to the new lifts and pedestrian bridge) 47

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact

7.3 Statement of Heritage Impact 48 8.0 Recommendations 50 8.1 Recommendation 1 – Further heritage input and assessment required 50 8.1.1 Recommendation 2 – Movable heritage survey 51 8.2 Recommendation 3 – Archival recording 51 8.3 Recommendation 4 – Salvage of material from the existing footbridge 51 8.4 Recommendation 5 – Protection of Location Hut during construction 51 8.5 Recommendation 6 – Heritage interpretation 51 8.6 Recommendation 7 – Notification to NSW Heritage Division 51 8.7 Recommendation 8 – Update of Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register listing 51 8.8 Recommendation 9 – Heritage induction 51 8.9 Recommendation 10 – Stop Work Procedure 52 9.0 References 53

List of Tables Table 1 Listed heritage items within the Proposal Area 7 Table 2 Comparative Analysis of Footbridges 24 Table 3 Significance assessment criteria 27 Table 4 Significance assessment – Panania Station 28 Table 5 Grading of significance criteria (from NSW Heritage Office, 2001:11) 29 Table 6 Panania Station grading of fabric 30 Table 7 Assessment of impacts to heritage significance of the Panania Railway Station Group 40 Table 8 Summary of the nature of the direct impacts 48

List of Tables Table 1 Listed heritage items within the Proposal Area 7 Table 2 Comparative Analysis of Footbridges 24 Table 3 Significance assessment criteria 27 Table 4 Significance assessment – Panania Station 28 Table 5 Grading of significance criteria (from NSW Heritage Office, 2001:11) 29 Table 6 Panania Station grading of fabric 30 Table 7 Assessment of impacts to heritage significance of the Panania Railway Station Group 40 Table 8 Summary of the nature of the direct impacts 48 List of Figures Figure 1 Panania Station Upgrade Study Area 2 Figure 2 Panania Railway Station Group Curtilage Plan (Adapted from OEH, 2016) 3 Figure 3 Detail of Bankstown Parish Map showing original grantees, undated. Approximate location of Panania Station marked. (Source: NSW Property & Information) 8 Figure 4 Panania Station 1942 (Courtesy of Sydney Trains) 10 Figure 5 Oblique aerial view of Panania, 1949. Station circled in red (Source: Molloy, 2015) 10 Figure 6 Excerpt of 1956 Plan for the Platform Building extension (Source: Sydney Trains Plan Room) 12 Figure 7 Excerpt of proposed footbridge, stairs and ramps, c1954 (Source: Sydney Trains Plan Room) 12 Figure 8 Plan of footbridge, stairs and ramps, c1981 (Source: Sydney Trains) 13 Figure 9 West elevation of Platform Building in 1984 (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register) 14 Figure 10 West elevation of Platform Building in 2007, prior to the construction of platform canopies (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register) 14 Figure 11 1931 Platform Building - east and north elevations in 2007, prior to the construction of platform canopies (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register) 15

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact

Figure 12 Facing west from footbridge in 2010. Note visual obstruction of Platform Building by canopies 15 Figure 13 Existing layout of Platform Building (Source: Jacobs, 2015) 16 Figure 14 Platform Building (eastern and northern façade) 17 Figure 15 Platform Building (northern façade) 17 Figure 16 Parapet with decorative brickwork to eastern façade. Note intrusive electrical box affixed to exterior 17 Figure 17 Original double-hung windows with bullnose sills replaced with replacement panes 17 Figure 18 Intrusive air conditioning unit inserted into original six-pane sash window 17 Figure 19 Replacement flush door. Note terrazzo door sill 17 Figure 20 Platform Building (eastern façade). Note old ticket window adjacent to non-DDA compliant Customer Information Window 18 Figure 21 1956 ticket window (eastern façade) which has been infilled 18 Figure 22 Original timber battened ceilings. Note number of perforations for services 18 Figure 23 Attachments to interior walls 18 Figure 24 Female toilet (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register) 18 Figure 25 Female waiting room (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register) 18 Figure 26 Island platform, eastern end 19 Figure 27 Island platform, western end 19 Figure 28 Brick platform detail 19 Figure 29 Platform and footbridge 19 Figure 30 View of the footbridge and stairs 20 Figure 31 View facing west from eastern end of platform 20 Figure 32 I-beam’ column construction 20 Figure 33 Footbridge over track 20 Figure 34 Concrete stairs to platform from the footbridge 20 Figure 35 Resurfaced footbridge deck and c2007 aluminium balustrading 20 Figure 36 Northern ramps to Anderson Street (north) 21 Figure 37 South ramp showing steel columns and concrete pier footings 21 Figure 38 Location Hut as viewed from the north (Panania Hotel car park) 21 Figure 39 Location Hut in relation to eastern end of platform 21 Figure 40 East elevation of Platform Building obscured by canopy structure 22 Figure 41 Canopies over western end of platform 22 Figure 42 Unsympathetic join of canopy to original masonry of west elevation 22 Figure 43 Join between canopy and Platform Building skillion roof, east elevation 22 Figure 44 Potential movable heritage object in ticketing office 22 Figure 45 Key Features of Panania Station Upgrade, Indicative only and subject to detailed design 34 Figure 46 Architectural design, north elevation .Indicative only and subject to detailed design (Source: Jacobs, 2015) 34 Figure 47 Artist’s impression of the Proposal – view of northern entrance from Anderson Avenue (north) - indicative only and subject to detailed design (Source: Jacobs, 2015) 35 Figure 48 Artist’s impression of the Proposal – view of southern entrance - indicative only and subject to detailed design (Source: Jacobs, 2015) 35 Figure 49 Existing Platform Building layout – spaces of earlier alterations (which includes extension of building) indicated in red, with non-original walls within that space shown in green (Source: AECOM) 37 Figure 50 Proposed new layout, subject to detailed design. Section in blue indicates original wall which would likely be impacted by the Proposal (Source: TfNSW) 37 Figure 51 Proposed works area and High Voltage electrical cable route 39

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage ImpactPanania Station Upgrade i

Executive Summary Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is the government agency responsible for the delivery of major transport infrastructure projects in NSW and is the proponent for the Panania Station Upgrade (the ‘Proposal’). The Proposal is part of the Transport Access Program (TAP) which is a NSW Government initiative to provide a better experience for public transport customers by delivering accessible, modern, secure and integrated transport infrastructure. This Statement of Heritage Impact has been prepared in support of a Review of Environmental Factors (REF), which has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposal under the provisions of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Panania Railway Station Group is listed on RailCorp’s Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register, meeting the following NSW Heritage Significance criteria: criterion a (historical); criterion c (aesthetic/technical); criterion d (social); criterion e (research potential); criterion f (rarity) and criterion g (representativeness). The key features of the Proposal are summarised as follows: - installation of three new lifts and stairs to provide access to the island platform - replacement of the existing footbridge with a new pedestrian bridge - installation of new canopies at both station entrances and along the new pedestrian bridge, stairs, lift landings and sections of the platform - refurbishment of the Platform Building with a new family accessible toilet, an accessible Customer Information Window and staff facilities to replace existing facilities - new undercover bicycle rack on the southern side of the station and an upgrade to the existing bicycle rack on the northern side of the station - provision of two new accessible parking spaces on both sides of the station - upgrades to the existing kiss and ride and taxi rank facilities on Anderson Avenue (south) and installation of two additional kiss and ride spaces on Weston Street - installation of a new raised pedestrian crossing on Weston Street, a new pedestrian refuge on Anderson Avenue (north) and new line marking on Braesmere Road - new kerb ramps to provide an accessible path of travel to new and existing interchange facilities - relocation of High Voltage electrical cables below ground at the station and surrounds - ancillary works including platform regrading (as necessary), services diversion and/or relocation, station power supply upgrade, minor drainage works, adjustments to lighting, upgrades to fencing and landscaping, new ticketing facilities including additional Opal card readers, improvement to station communication systems (including CCTV cameras) and wayfinding signage. The Proposal would have a minor impact to the 1931 Platform Building as some original fabric would require removal, interior spaces would be reconfigured for new facilities (including a new family accessible toilet) and a doorway would be infilled. The Platform Building has been altered and modified over the decades resulting in the loss of original spatial integrity and some fabric, and its refurbishment presents an opportunity to rectify unsympathetic modifications. The Proposal has the potential to positively impact on the social (criterion d) significance of Panania Station through provision of equitable access and upgraded services and amenities. The temporary enabling works would have no long-term impacts on the assessed significance. The Proposal would involve the upgrade of existing elements while retaining their function and purpose and demonstrating continuity of use. The Proposal represents the next phase of utility for Panania Railway Station Group.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage ImpactPanania Station Upgrade ii

The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimise impacts: - further heritage assessment is required during detailed design for the following items: - proposed canopy design - internal and external Platform Building design. - archival recording of the station as a whole prior to the commencement of construction following NSW Heritage Division guidelines Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (NSW Heritage Office, 2006) and How to prepare archival records (NSW Heritage Office, 1998). Copies should be provided to the City of Canterbury-Bankstown Council and Sydney Trains for future reference. In particular the following elements should be concentrated on: - interior and exterior of Platform Building - existing footbridge, including 1970s ramps. - material from the existing footbridge assessed as structurally sound and in good condition should be salvaged for repair of other similar footbridges. The Sydney Trains Heritage Team should be notified of the timeframe for demolition and an appropriate repository for the material nominated. The Sydney Trains Heritage Team should nominate structures where use of the salvaged elements is required. Appropriate storage and cataloguing of individual elements will be required - the Location Hut should be demarcated as a constraint / no-go area during construction to avoid potential construction impacts and vibration - installation of new heritage interpretation at the new station entrances (similar to the other East Hills stations e.g. Narwee) should be developed which may include information and photographs of the original footbridge - a movable heritage survey and assessment following NSW Heritage Division guidelines Movable Heritage Principles (NSW Heritage Office, 2000) and Objects in Their Place (NSW Heritage Office, 2004) should be prepared prior to any further design phases for the Platform Building. The assessment should provide a schedule of movable heritage objects, and a detailed management strategy for their safeguarding during and after Proposal. This assessment should also provide guidance on potential areas of interpretation for certain objects (such as the timber bench, phone, etc.) - section 170 notification to the Heritage Division is required for major alteration including demolition of elements within a Section 170 listed precinct, namely the existing footbridge - a heritage induction should be provided to all on-site staff and contractors involved in the Proposal. The induction should clearly describe the heritage constraints of the site - the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is to include stop work procedures in accordance with Transport for NSW’s (TfNSW’s) Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline (Transport for NSW, 2015) to manage activities in the unlikely event that intact archaeological relics or deposits are encountered.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Background The NSW Government is committed to facilitating and encouraging use of public transport, such as trains, by upgrading stations to make them more accessible, and improving interchanges around stations with other modes of transport such as bicycles and cars. The Panania Station Upgrade (the ‘Proposal’) is required to provide safe and equitable access to the station and across the railway to the surrounding pedestrian network and would also improve customer facilities and amenity. The improvements would in turn assist in supporting the growth in public transport use and would provide an improved customer experience for existing and future users of the station. Panania Station is currently the 134th busiest railway station on the Sydney Trains network, with approximately 3,230 trips on an average weekday recorded in 2014 (NSW Bureau of Transport Statistics station barrier counts, 2016), and the predicated increase in customers has been taken into consideration during the design development. The Panania Railway Station Group is listed on the RailCorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register (SHI No. 4801926) and as the item is not listed on the State Heritage Register, approval for the Proposal is not required from the Heritage Council of NSW under the NSW Heritage Act 1977. However, as the Panania Railway Station Group is heritage listed on the Section 170 Register, a Statement of Heritage Impact is still required to assess the impacts of the Proposal on the identified heritage significance of the station. This Statement of Heritage Impact outlines the historical context of the station and assesses its historical significance using NSW Heritage Division guidelines Assessing Heritage Significance (NSW Heritage Office, 2001). An assessment of the impact of the Proposal on the significance of the Panania Railway Station Group more broadly was also undertaken. The station has been identified as one of numerous stations requiring upgraded facilities to comply with key requirements of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (DSAPT) or the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). Currently there is no ramp or lift access to the platform and there are non-compliant paths of travel from the surrounding footpaths and roads. Panania Station also does not currently meet emergency evacuation criteria. Subject to planning approval, construction is expected to commence in 2016 and is anticipated to take up to 18 months to complete. The key features of the Proposal are summarised as follows: - installation of three new lifts and stairs to provide access to the island platform - replacement of the existing footbridge with a new pedestrian bridge - installation of new canopies at both station entrances and along the new pedestrian bridge, stairs, lift landings and sections of the platform - refurbishment of the Platform Building with a new family accessible toilet, an accessible Customer Information Window and staff facilities to replace existing facilities - new undercover bicycle rack on the southern side of the station and an upgrade to the existing bicycle rack on the northern side of the station - provision of two new accessible parking spaces on both sides of the station - upgrades to the existing kiss and ride and taxi rank facilities on Anderson Avenue (south) and installation of two additional kiss and ride spaces on Weston Street - installation of a new raised pedestrian crossing on Weston Street, a new pedestrian refuge on Anderson Avenue (north) and new line marking on Braesmere Road - new kerb ramps to provide an accessible path of travel to new and existing interchange facilities - relocation of High Voltage electrical cables below ground at the station and surrounds - ancillary works including platform regrading (as necessary), services diversion and/or relocation, station power supply upgrade, minor drainage works, adjustments to lighting, upgrades to fencing and landscaping, new ticketing facilities including additional Opal card readers, improvement to station communication systems (including CCTV cameras) and wayfinding signage.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 2

1.2 Site Identification The suburb of Panania is located approximately 22 kilometres south-west of Sydney central business district, within the Canterbury-Bankstown Local Government Area (LGA). Panania is bordered by the suburbs of East Hills to the west, Revesby to the east, Sandy Point to the south and Milperra to the north. The suburb is served by the T2 Airport, Inner West and South Line providing connections to the suburban Sydney Trains network. The adjacent stations to Panania are East Hills (west) and Revesby (east). The main station entrance is from Braesmere Road and Anderson Avenue (north) on the northern side, and Weston Street and Anderson Avenue (south) on the southern side. No arterial roads run adjacent to the station. Panania is a suburban commuter station, primarily serving a low rise residential catchment. The study area for the Proposal (i.e. the Panania Station precinct) encompasses the station, associated commuter car parking and interchange facilities, passenger access between those facilities and main pedestrian access paths to the station and is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Panania Station Upgrade Study Area The RailCorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register curtilage for Panania Station is defined to the north by the boundary of RailCorp property along Edwards Reserve and Anderson Street (north), includes five metres east of the Location Hut adjacent to (south of) the Panania Hotel car park off Anderson Street (but excluding the car park) and five metres west of the end of the platform. The RailCorp property boundary line fronting Weston Street forms the southern heritage boundary. The heritage listing curtilage is shown in Figure 2.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 3

Figure 2 Panania Railway Station Group Curtilage Plan (Adapted from OEH, 2016)

1.3 Project Methodology Heritage assessment in this report has been undertaken in accordance with the NSW Heritage Division Assessing Heritage Significance (NSW Heritage Office, 2001) and Statements of Heritage Impact (NSW Heritage Office, 2002), and includes: - desktop searches of relevant heritage registers - review of Proposal drawings and concept design report (Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited, 2015) - review of the following key documents: • heritage register listings for identified sites • historic plans for the station held by the Sydney Trains Plans Room • previous reports and other relevant documentation provided by TfNSW. - background research into the historical development of the station using the historic plans, historical photographs, newspapers and other primary and secondary historical sources as relevant and referenced in Section 3.0 - site inspection on 23 March 2016 by AECOM staff assessing the existing station (both internal and external) along with the existing character of the study area and surrounding land uses. Note: all photographs within this report were taken during the site inspection unless otherwise stated.

1.4 Report Limitations The purpose of this report is to identify and assess historic heritage and archaeological potential which might be impacted by the Proposal. Predictions have been made within this report about the probability of subsurface archaeological materials occurring within the site, based on surface indications and environmental contexts. However, it is possible that materials may occur in areas without surface indications and in any environmental context. These would be addressed in accordance with TfNSW’s Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline (Transport for NSW, 2015). This report is based on concept design for the Proposal. It is noted that during detailed design,

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 4

details of the Proposal may change or be refined. Further heritage assessment would be required to assess the potential additional impacts to the heritage value of Panania Station during detailed design as outlined in Section 8.0. A summary of the statutory requirements regarding historical heritage is provided in Section 2.0. The summary is provided based on the experience of the authors with the heritage system in Australia and does not purport to be legal advice. It should be noted that legislation, regulations and guidelines change over time and users of the report should satisfy themselves that the statutory requirements have not changed since the report was written.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 5

2.0 Statutory Context A number of planning and legislative documents govern how heritage is managed in NSW and Australia. The following section provides an overview of the requirements under each as they apply to the Proposal.

2.1 Commonwealth Legislation 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historic cultural heritage items. Under the EPBC Act, protected heritage items are listed on the National Heritage List (NHL) (items of significance to the nation) or the Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE). The RNE has been suspended and is no longer a statutory list; however, it remains as an archive. Under Part 9 of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (known as a controlled action under the EPBC Act), may only progress with approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Department of the Environment (DotE). An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if: - it is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land - it is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact. Panania Station has not been identified on the NHL, CHL or RNE, nor are there any Commonwealth-listed heritage items within 200m of the station curtilage, therefore the Proposal would not require a referral under the EPBC Act with respect to heritage. 2.1.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth) The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) aims to reduce, to the level possible, discrimination against people with a disability. The DDA requires that people are given equal opportunity to access public transport and buildings, including those with heritage significance. The Proposal is being undertaken, in part, to comply with the requirements of the DDA.

2.2 State Legislation 2.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) allows for the preparation of planning instruments to direct development within NSW. This includes Local Environment Plans (LEP), which are administered by local government, and principally determine land use and the process for development applications. LEPs usually include clauses requiring that heritage be considered during development applications and a schedule of identified heritage items be provided. The EP&A Act also allows for the gazettal of State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP). 2.2.2 Infrastructure SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (NSW) SEPPs are environmental planning instruments which address planning issues within the State. SEPPs often make the Planning Minister the consent authority for the types of development they relate to. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP 2007) is of relevance to this Proposal. Clause 14 of ISEPP 2007 applies to infrastructure developments carried out by, or on behalf of, a public authority if the development is likely to impact a local heritage item or heritage conservation area (other than a heritage item that is also a State heritage item). Under ISEPP 2007, a public authority, or person/s acting on behalf of a public authority, must not carry out a development to which this clause applies, unless an assessment of the proposed impact has been prepared and forwarded to the local government of the area for comment. Comments received within 21 days must be taken into consideration.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 6

2.2.3 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) The Heritage Act 1977 (as amended) was enacted to conserve the environmental heritage of NSW. Under Section 32, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects or precincts of heritage significance are protected by means of either Interim Heritage Orders (IHO) or by listing on the NSW State Heritage Register (SHR). Items that are assessed as having State heritage significance can be listed on the SHR by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council. Proposals to alter, damage, move or destroy places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects or precincts protected by an IHO or listed on the SHR require an approval under Section 60. Under Section 170 of the Heritage Act 1977, NSW Government agencies are required to maintain a register of heritage assets. The register places obligations on the agencies, but not on non-government proponents, beyond their responsibility to assess the impact on surrounding heritage items. The Panania Railway Station Group has been identified on the RailCorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register under State Heritage Inventory database #4801926. Under Section 170A(1)(c) Sydney Trains must provide the Heritage Division with written notice prior to demolition of any place, building or work entered in its register. Archaeological features and deposits are afforded statutory protection by the ‘relics provision’. Section 4(1) of the Heritage Act 1977 (as amended 2009) defines ‘relic’ as follows: any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that: (a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and (b) is of State or local heritage significance. The ‘relics provision’ requires that no archaeological relics be disturbed or destroyed without prior consent from the Heritage Council of NSW. Therefore, no ground disturbance works may proceed in areas identified as having archaeological potential without first obtaining an Excavation Permit pursuant to Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977, or an Archaeological Exception under Section 139 of the Heritage Act 1977. The Heritage Council must be notified of the discovery of a relic under Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977.

2.3 Local Government Panania Station is located within Canterbury-Bankstown local government area (LGA). Section 2.3.1 outlines the relevance of the Bankstown LEP to the Proposal. 2.3.1 Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 Part 5, Section 5.10 of the Bankstown LEP 2015 deals with heritage conservation within the area covered by this LEP. All heritage items listed on the LEP are included in Schedule 5. The Bankstown LEP 2015 states: (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows: a. to conserve the environmental heritage of Bankstown b. to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views, c. to conserve archaeological sites, d. to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance. (2) Development consent is required for any of the following: a. demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance): i. a heritage item, ii. an Aboriginal object, iii. a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 7

b. altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 5 in relation to the item, c. disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed, d. disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, e. erecting a building on land: i. on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or ii. on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, f. subdividing land: i. on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or ii. on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance. Panania Railway Station Group is not a listed item of environmental heritage on Schedule 5 of the Bankstown LEP 2015.

2.4 Summary of Statutory Controls Panania Station has been identified as holding local significance and is listed on the RailCorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register. In addition, the register search was extended to 200 metres from the curtilage of Panania Station to establish if there were surrounding registered items or conservation areas that may be affected by the Proposal (Table 1). The Nurse Schwarzel Fountain is located around 150 metres south of the station curtilage however this item would not be impacted by the Proposal. Table 1 Listed heritage items within the Proposal Area

Heritage List Heritage Items within Proposal Area Level of Significance World Heritage List None n/a National Heritage List None n/a Commonwealth Heritage List None n/a Register of the National Estate None n/a (non-statutory) State Heritage Register None n/a RailCorp Section 170 Register Panania Railway Station Group (#4801926) Local Bankstown LEP 2015 Nurse Schwarzel Fountain, 77 Anderson Avenue, Local Panania (Item ID I30)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 8

3.0 Historical Context In order to appreciate the heritage significance of an item, it is important to understand the historical context in which it was constructed and the subsequent factors that have influenced its development. The following sections outline the development of Panania Railway Station Group.

3.1 Early Settlement Panania Railway Station Group is located on land which was part of an original 1804 grant to George Johnston Junior (1790–1820), the son of Captain George Johnson (1780–1823), a First Fleeter who was briefly the Lieutenant-Governor of NSW after leading the uprising later known as the Rum Rebellion. He was granted land in the Bankstown region predominantly situated around George’s River and his property was used as an outpost for Government Forces as early as 1803. George Johnstone Junior was granted 500 acres in 1804 and called it ‘New Jerusalem’ (Figure 3). This grant had the modern day boundaries of Bransgrove Road, south down The River Road, west along Thompson Road, to a position between Malvern Street and Hinemoa Street, then across at an angle to join Bransgrove Road, in the vicinity of Horsley Road.

Approximate location of Panania Station

Figure 3 Detail of Bankstown Parish Map showing original grantees, undated. Approximate location of Panania Station marked. (Source: NSW Property & Information)

Johnston's tenant farmer Robert Gardiner renamed the farm, East Hills. The area to the west was granted to George Nicholas Weston in 1838. In 1893, the former Johnston and Weston grants were subdivided into five acre farms when the ‘Weston Estate’ was marketed in 1893. The blocks of land were typically used for orchards, vegetable gardens, and poultry farming (Molloy, 2005). The area was the most settled of the broader southern Bankstown or East Hills district with at least 150 orchards by 1900, with an active progress association and a number of churches. A private school opened in 1894.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 9

3.2 The Coming of the Railway to East Hills In a report dated 20 January 1874, Mr R. D. Stephens, Surveyor, described proposed regional rail alignments to Mr Whitton, Engineer-in-Chief of Railways. A line was to follow the eastern side of Iron Cove Creek as far as Dulwich Hill from which point two alternative routes were suggested, one of which would pass through Canterbury. The surveyor pointed out that the only advantage of the Canterbury line was to provide a railway station at Canterbury – a prospect which he thought was hardly worth undertaking (Jervis, 1951, p. 47). Lobbying by local interests and land speculators achieved Parliamentary approval for a new Marrickville-Burwood railway in 1890 and construction commenced in 1892. The 1890s depression suppressed the profitability of the line, however suburban development followed in the early twentieth century, particularly during the inter war period when many War Service homes were built west of Canterbury. The line was extended to Bankstown in 1909 (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2016a). Proposals for a line to East Hills were first officially raised after World War I as an extension of the existing line at Bankstown. The lack of a railway hindered development and settlement of the Canterbury district and it was the main driver in the campaign. The Hurstville Propeller in 1928 stated that Mr Charles Howard “was probably the first man to propose the Tempe to East Hills Line, and that about 1908, Bexley Council, on his motion, approached the Government on the subject.” Mr Norman Scott in a letter in the Bankstown Canterbury Torch in 1981 claimed that it was his father Bill Scott, an aspiring politician, who proposed the line in 1920-21. There were others who also publicly claimed to be the originator of the scheme (Madden, 1981, p. 5). In 1923, the Railway Department put forward a proposal for a line from Tempe to Salt Pan Creek to serve the growing town of Dumbleton (later known as Beverly Hills). Residents west of Salt Pan Creek petitioned the government to extend the line to East Hills. The NSW Public Works Committee approved the construction of the extension in August 1924 and the bill for construction of the line passed both Houses of the State Parliament in late 1924 (“Railway Recommended,” 1924). The initial line was to be a double track between Tempe and Kingsgrove and single track beyond, although earthworks were to allow future easy duplication of the entire route. Electrification was also to end at Kingsgrove. Construction began in 1927 with the employment of 400 workers (“Construction of New Suburban Line,” 1928). The first section to Kingsgrove opened on 21 September 1931 as an electrified double track line. The second section, a single-track non-electrified extension to East Hills which included Panania Station, was opened on 19 December 1931 (“Kingsgrove-East Hills: Railway officially opened,” 1931). The single line was opened for electric services on 17 December 1939 and in1948 the line was duplicated between Kingsgrove and Herne Bay (now Riverwood). In 1931, the railway line was extended to East Hills. Originally Panania station was to be called East Hills and the terminus would be East Hills Park. However to minimise confusion a new name was sought. Panania was chosen – an Aboriginal word thought to mean ‘The sun rising in the east and shining on the hills’. The settlement expected with the coming railway did not eventuate until after World War 2, with many homes being built by the Housing Commission close to the station. The Australian Legion of Ex-Servicemen and Women sponsored the mass production of housing at Panania beginning from 1946 with the construction of 34 houses (“34 Homes for Ex-Servicemen,” 1946) (Figure 5). The East Hills railway line originally terminated one stop away at East Hills. During the 1980s, the railway line was extended with a rail bridge over the Georges River to Campbelltown. This had the effect of raising Panania's suburban status as it was no longer second last on the line, but comfortably midway. Later private developers developed the original five acre farms for suburban housing. All platform buildings on the East Hills line were built to the same general design and plan, which was revised after initial planning to include a ticket office, Station Master’s office and parcels office. The line was electrified from Kingsgrove in 1939, duplicated in 1948, and in 1987 the East Hills terminus was connected to the Main Southern Line at Glenfield Junction. Although the original terminus building at East Hills Station was demolished in 1987, the remainder of the East Hills Line from Turrella to Panania is the only line in Sydney with all platform buildings extant from its original construction phase, although some have been altered.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 10

Figure 4 Panania Station 1942 (Courtesy of Sydney Trains)

Figure 5 Oblique aerial view of Panania, 1949. Station circled in red (Source: Molloy, 2015)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 11

3.3 Development of Panania Railway Station Group The name Panania was on the original list of stations proposed for the Tempe-East Hills railway line in 1929 (“Tempe-East Hills line: Railway stations named,” 1929). Panania is an Aboriginal word meaning ‘sun rising in the east and shining on the hills’. During the construction of the railway line the name Nioka was used for the station which is an Aboriginal word thought to mean ‘green hill’. Other names suggested for the suburb were ‘Linden Park’ and ‘Elmswood’ (Pollon & Healy, 1990, p. 200). Panania Station was one of ten similar or identical Inter War suburban railway stations completed in 1931 between Turrella and East Hills. The period between 1930 and 1940 marked a transition of railway station design styles from Federation-influenced towards Inter War Functionalist, with influences of the Art Deco design school. 1936 was the last year in which the Federation design was used but the transition away from it started in 1929 with the design of platform buildings for the East Hills branch (Sharp, 2012, p. 9). The style features of East Hills line platform buildings include: - ornamental roof treatment of gables - cantilevered awnings with box gutters - Marseille pattern, semi glazed roof tiles - an open styled waiting area called a “corridor”, with a then new style of fixed seats - ceilings of fibro cement sheets under both platform canopies, hiding the awning support mechanism - restrained, ornamental brick work (Halgren, 2014). All platform buildings on the East Hills line were built to the same general design and plan, to include a ticket office, Station Master’s office and parcels office. Panania Station opened on 21 December 1931 when the line was extended from Kingsgrove to East Hills and in 1948 the line was duplicated (NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, 2016). Aerial photographs from the 1940s (Figure 4) shows the original layout of the station group comprising an island platform with plantings along its length, and the Platform Building. Access to the station appears to be by level crossing. The footbridge (including ramps and stairs), as well as the Location Hut, are later additions to the station group (as discussed below). 3.3.1 A Mid-Century Station Upgrade In the mid-1950s Panania Station underwent an upgrade which included the construction of the (extant) footbridge, stairs and ramps, and an extension to the Platform Building at its eastern end. The building extension created a combined booking and parcel room. A new window was proposed for the northern elevation however is likely to have been relocated to the eastern elevation to form the new ticket window, as demonstrated by the existing physical evidence. It appears the ‘ladies waiting room’ was located in the second room at the eastern end where the current meals room is located. The extant waiting room corridor is likely a remnant of this ‘general waiting room’ as it was a common design in East Hills line platform buildings. The rooms could also have been switched sometime within the initial25 year period, or may also indicate early alteration to room function, as the ladies waiting room was usually located adjacent to the female toilet. It could also be an annotation error on plan. The extension works stayed true to the original design and was a nearly seamless addition to the Platform Building.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 12

Figure 6 Excerpt of 1956 Plan for the Platform Building extension (Source: Sydney Trains Plan Room) A new concrete footbridge with ramps and steel deck support was approved circa 1954 (Figure 7), which likely formed part of the same construction program as the Platform Building extension. Sourced archival plans reveal various platform access designs which were never implemented, such as the positioning of new steps and fencing circa 1981 (Figure 8).

Figure 7 Excerpt of proposed footbridge, stairs and ramps, c1954 (Source: Sydney Trains Plan Room)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 13

Figure 8 Plan of footbridge, stairs and ramps, c1981 (Source: Sydney Trains) 3.3.2 Recent Change and Alterations to the Panania Station Group An increasing number of modifications to the station group over the past 15 years have incrementally chipped away at the integrity of building fabric and design. The evolution of the Platform Building from 1984 to 2010 can be seen in Figure 9 to Figure 12. Air conditioning units and security bars to windows have been installed, one door opening has been bricked up and all doors replaced with modern timber flush doors (Figure 10). Importantly, the original ticket window in the 1956 extension has been covered up and a non-DDA compliant Customer Information Window has been inserted adjacent. The date for this upgrade is unknown but likely occurred in the late 1990s or early 2000s. In 2005 the station brickwork was painted, and in 2007 the existing footbridge at Panania Station was updated with a new concrete deck and aluminium balustrading. Extensive canopies were constructed in 2010 over the island platform from the access stairs to the Platform Building, as well as approximately 30 metres to the western side of the Platform Building.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 14

Figure 9 West elevation of Platform Building in 1984 (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register)

Figure 10 West elevation of Platform Building in 2007, prior to the construction of platform canopies (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 15

Figure 11 1931 Platform Building - east and north elevations in 2007, prior to the construction of platform canopies (Source: RailCorp Section 170 Heritage Register)

Figure 12 Facing west from footbridge in 2010. Note visual obstruction of Platform Building by canopies

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 16

4.0 Physical Evidence This section provides a physical description of Panania Railway Station Group to provide an understanding of the physical elements that contribute to the station’s heritage significance. It also includes a focused comparative analysis of the footbridge with ramps in order to assess its significance, as presented in Section 5.0.

4.1 Panania Station – Major Group Elements 4.1.1 General Overview Panania Railway Station Group is situated around 22 kilometres south-west of Central Station on the East Hills / T2 Airport, Inner West and South Line, flanked by Revesby to the east and East Hills to the west. Panania is a suburban commuter station in a low density residential area. Panania Station is entered via modern entry steps off an existing footbridge with ramps from Anderson Avenue (north) from the north and Weston Street from the south. Small commercial shopping strips are located adjacent to the station in Weston Street. The station consists of the original single storey Platform Building (Type 13) on an island platform (dating to 1931) with a recently added platform canopy on either side of the Platform Building (2010). The platform is accessed from concrete reversing ramps (off the street to the existing footbridge and stairs (c.1956). The individual elements are described in detail below, with descriptions taken from the Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register listing and confirmed during analysis. 4.1.2 Platform Building (1931) The Platform Building is located at the western end of the platform and is a painted brick building of standard stretcher bond brickwork, of five bays length similar to the majority of platform buildings on the East Hills line. The five bays are defined by simple brick engaged piers. The building has stepped brick parapets at east and west ends. The brickwork and features all conform to the Inter War Functionalist style. The corrugated steel roof is gabled at east and west ends against the parapets, and is hipped over the awnings to the north, south and east, which are an integral part of the roof form. The eastern hipped awning wraps around the eastern parapet (Figure 14 and Figure 15). There are modern fibre cement sheet ceilings to the awnings. The stepped parapets each feature a projecting moulded brick capping course and three vertical lines of projecting decorative brickwork that now has an intrusive box attached to it (Figure 16). Each parapet features three unglazed terracotta vents. Many of the timber-framed double-hung windows are original, three to the northern facade and two to the southern facade, with original six-paned top sash, or small timber framed windows with frameless glass or glass louvres (Figure 17 and Figure 18). There are also small timber framed windows with frameless glass or glass louvres. Original window openings feature bullnose brick sills and both window and door openings feature chamfered brickwork. Original door openings have terrazzo door sills, with a few tiled over (Figure 19). The 1956 extension ticket window, complete with timber framing, is also covered over but appears intact and features stop- chamfered brickwork to the opening (Figure 20 - Figure 21). Two original stop-chamfered timber posts support the eastern end of the eastern awning, outside the ticket office, however these posts have modern concrete bases. The interior comprises a combined ticket/parcels office (Station Master's room), male and female toiles, and a corridor waiting room which represents only a portion of the original waiting room (Figure 13). Internal upgrades and spatial reconfiguration of the waiting room has occurred over time. Various electrical conduits, signage, metal units and support structures for the display monitors have been unsympathetically fitted to original masonry on both the interior and exterior of the building (Figure 22 and Figure 23). Some original interior joinery and fitout has survived including windows and the timber bench in the waiting room (Figure 24 and Figure 25). The original timber battened ceiling, albeit with some damage, is extant to all rooms except the waiting room/female toilet.

Figure 13 Existing layout of Platform Building (Source: Jacobs, 2015)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 17

Figure 14 Platform Building (eastern and northern Figure 15 Platform Building (northern façade) façade)

Figure 16 Parapet with decorative brickwork to Figure 17 Original double-hung windows with eastern façade. Note intrusive electrical bullnose sills replaced with replacement box affixed to exterior panes

Figure 18 Intrusive air conditioning unit inserted Figure 19 Replacement flush door. Note terrazzo into original six-pane sash window door sill

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 18

Figure 20 Platform Building (eastern façade). Note Figure 21 1956 ticket window (eastern façade) old ticket window adjacent to non-DDA which has been infilled compliant Customer Information Window

Figure 22 Original timber battened ceilings. Note Figure 23 Attachments to interior walls number of perforations for services

Figure 24 Female toilet (Source: RailCorp Section Figure 25 Female waiting room (Source: RailCorp 170 Heritage Register) Section 170 Heritage Register)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 19

4.1.3 Platform (1931) The single island platform is wide in the middle (around 9.6 metres) and narrower at the ends (around 6.4 metres) (Figure 26 to Figure 29). It has an asphalt capping and in some areas the original brick detailing can be seen beneath flaking paintwork. Localised regrading of the existing platform with a crossfall of maximum 1:100 and minimum 1:40 towards the centre of platform is required to meet DDA and RailCorp Design Standards.

Figure 26 Island platform, eastern end Figure 27 Island platform, western end

Figure 28 Brick platform detail Figure 29 Platform and footbridge

4.1.4 Footbridge, Stairs and Ramps (c1956) The concrete footbridge and ramps have a steel deck support and steel trestle substructure. One set of stairs lead off the footbridge down to the island platform while ramps extend down to street level at both the north and south entrances to the station (Figure 30 to Figure 37). The steel trestle substructure is constructed of steel Rolled Steel Joists (RSJ) or ‘I’ beams as the principal posts with concrete pier footings. A 2007 upgrade to the footbridge saw original balustrade framing, handrails, wire mesh (and possible newel posts) replaced with white powder-coated aluminium balustrading and the concrete deck replaced. The footbridge structure is uncovered. This footbridge type falls into the subset category ‘footbridge with ramps’ as defined in Railway Footbridges Heritage Conservation Strategy (NSW Government Architect’s Office Heritage Group, Draft March 2016) and is discussed further in Section 4.2 Comparative Analysis – Discussion of Footbridge.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 20

Figure 30 View of the footbridge and stairs Figure 31 View facing west from eastern end of platform

Figure 32 I-beam’ column construction Figure 33 Footbridge over track

Figure 34 Concrete stairs to platform from the Figure 35 Resurfaced footbridge deck and c2007 footbridge aluminium balustrading

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 21

Figure 36 Northern ramps to Anderson Street Figure 37 South ramp showing steel columns and (north) concrete pier footings

4.1.5 Location Hut (c1931) This is a small rectangular building built of pre-fabricated concrete panels between concrete structural posts, and features a gabled corrugated steel roof (Figure 38). The structure likely functioned as a store for electrical switches and signalling equipment. It does not appear on the 1942 aerial photograph and its pre-cast manufacture and positioning on the duplication line (1948) suggests it was a later addition to the precinct. The Location Hut is located to the northeast of the station platform and would not be directly impacted by the Proposal. However it could still be at risk from indirect impacts from vibration during the construction phase (Figure 39).

Figure 38 Location Hut as viewed from the north Figure 39 Location Hut in relation to eastern end of (Panania Hotel car park) platform

4.1.6 Platform Canopies (2010) Modern skillion canopies were installed in 2010 to both the east and west of the Platform Building. These are supported by steel posts on concrete bases with corrugated steel roofs (Figure 40 and Figure 41). The placement of the canopy at the base of the stairs visually obscures the line of sight to the Platform Building. The canopies have also been attached to both ends of the building with poorly reconciled and unsympathetic joins (Figure 42 and Figure 43). The Proposal would replace the eastern canopy and it is recommended that the western canopy also be detached from the Platform Building.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 22

Figure 40 East elevation of Platform Building Figure 41 Canopies over western end of platform obscured by canopy structure

Figure 42 Unsympathetic join of canopy to original Figure 43 Join between canopy and Platform masonry of west elevation Building skillion roof, east elevation

4.1.7 Additional elements – movable heritage Panania Railway Station Group has a number of objects which may be valued as movable heritage, such as the section of timber bench in the waiting room, signs, old services and communication devices. It is recommended that a movable heritage survey and assessment be undertaken (refer to Section 8.0).

Figure 44 Potential movable heritage object in ticketing office

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 23

4.2 Comparative Analysis – Discussion of Footbridge The footbridge and ramps at Panania Station are the subject of this comparative analysis in order to understand their contribution to the station group, as previous assessments have incorrectly dated their construction (Section 170 Heritage Register listing, Rappoport 2015). The later addition of a major structural element to the Panania Railway Station Group requires consideration of historical context in order to appreciate levels of significance within the group, which directly affects its capacity for adaptation and change. The use of ramps instead of stairs was a common feature of footbridges between 1930 and 1960. For many heritage-listed railway stations the footbridges have already been replaced with modern structures in the last 50 years. Footbridges with steel trestle substructures are not considered to be rare, as they present in 53 out of 66 footbridges assessed in the Draft Footbridges Heritage Conservation Strategy (NSW Government Architect’s Office (GAO) Heritage Group, 2016). The majority of the footbridges (37) in the GAO study have a steel beam deck support structure with a ‘straight’ beam, as is the design at Panania. A subset of the footbridges in the study includes ramps in their original design, either to the platforms or the street. The ramps fall into two main categories: ramps supported on steel structures; and ramps formed by earth embankments and retaining walls. Ten of these footbridge types with ramps on steep support substructures have been identified across the Sydney Trains network, including Pendle Hill and Toongabbie which were earmarked for demolition but retained: - Clyde - Doonside - Gordon - Granville - Leightonfield - Pendle Hill (1944) - Rooty Hill (c.1944) - Seven Hills - Toongabbie (1946) - Wentworthville The Panania footbridge was not included in the GAO study as it had already been earmarked for demolition as part of the station upgrade projects required to provide DDA-compliant access to the station, and undergone a separate environmental and heritage impact assessment (GAO, 2016). The majority (seven of the ten) East Hill line stations which comprise the ‘1931 Group’ were accessed via brick overbridges with entry stairs to the platforms. Narwee Station retains its original pedestrian subway. Revesby and Panania were the only two stations of the ten with footbridges with ramps, however these structures are later additions to the station groups and never formed part of their original design. As the suburbs around the stations developed after the war, safer access to platforms was required and the footbridges replaced simple level crossings. The footbridge and ramp type then represented a shift towards functional and utilitarian design associated with wartime expansion of railway services. One of the earliest use of ramps instead of stairs is represented at Leightonfield Railway Station circa 1942 (Table 2). This footbridge design became a key component of other stations built in the 1940s, such as Pendle Hill and Toongabbie, and reflects war time financial constraints. This footbridge with ramp design appears to have been favoured for at least another decade for its aesthetic and efficiency of cost and foot traffic attributes. It was the preferred footbridge type constructed during station upgrades in the 1950s, including at Revesby and Panania railway stations. Interestingly, whilst the footbridge design reflects a particular global political context of the 1940s, they sit with an Inter War station design of the late 1920s/early 1930s which also reflected the economic austerity of that time. The Revesby footbridge, stairs and ramps were replaced by a new footbridge in 2007 (refer to Table 2).

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 24

Table 2 Comparative Analysis of Footbridges

Railway Description Image Station Leightonfield Railway Station has local significance as a station which represents the expansion of railway services during World War II. The station is historically associated with the former Commonwealth Munitions Factory, the simple and utilitarian design of the station and its platform buildings demonstrating the urgency with which the station was established Leightonfield in 1942 to cater to passenger traffic to the factory. The ramped footbridge has been altered 1942-1944 considerably but it is one of the earliest examples of the use of ramps instead of stairs. The steel footbridge is supported on the original trestles. The original ramps to north and south (with original concrete deck and wire mesh balustrade) still remain. There is a new steel balustrade to the top of the footbridge and a new steel and concrete stair down on to Platform 2. All existing steel was refurbished when the new stair was constructed in c.1994 (RailCorp Section 170 Register). The footbridge (1946) at Toongabbie Station is a steel beam structure supported on RSJ steel trestles with concrete deck over the platforms and main lines with stairs to each of the platforms, and a ramp to street level on each side. It is of a simple structure with no ornamentation representing economic policies of the time. The footbridge and associated stairs and ramps are covered with corrugated metal awnings (RailCorp Section 170 Toongabbie Register). 1942-1946

The footbridge at Pendle Hill is a steel beam structure with concrete deck and RSJ steel supports over the platforms and main lines with stairs to each of the platforms, and a ramp to street level on each side. It is a simple structure with no ornamentation representing economic policies of the time. The footbridge and associated stairs and ramps are covered Pendle Hill with Colorbond awnings (RailCorp Section 170 Register). 1943-1944

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 25

Railway Description Image Station In 1955-1956 the station upgrade program was implemented at Revesby including the construction of a steel beam footbridge with concrete deck and RSJ steel supports over the platform and ramp to street level on each side, a crossing loop and a 2-bay eastern addition was built to the brick island Platform Building. In 2007 the 1931 footbridge at Revesby Station was replaced with a new covered footbridge, stairs, lifts and canopy connected to the station (RailCorp Section 170 Register).

Revesby 1931, 1956

In 1955-1956 the station upgrade program was implemented at Panania including the construction of a steel beam footbridge with concrete deck and RSJ steel supports over the platform and ramp to street level on each side, a crossing loop and a 2-bay eastern addition was built to the brick island Platform Building. The footbridge has been modernised (2007) with a new concrete deck and white powder-coated aluminium balustrading. Panania 1931, 1956

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 26

According to the Draft Footbridges Heritage Conservation Strategy - the Toongabbie, Pendle Hill and Leightonfield footbridges are assessed as holding only moderate heritage significance, but the case is made for the conservation of Pendle Hill and Leightonfield due to their strong contributions to their respective heritage railway precinct. This meets the following conservation strategy policies: STRATEGY 9. Railway station footbridges of moderate heritage significance which also contribute to heritage railway precincts should be prioritised for conservation. STRATEGY 10. A range of good examples of railway station footbridges of moderate heritage significance should be earmarked for careful conservation. They should be chosen to because of their ability to represent different periods and constructions techniques (GAO, 2016: 63). The Draft Footbridge Heritage Conservation Strategy assists in the determination of significance category, based on amount of original fabric and contribution to the overall heritage values of the precinct. Footbridges of ‘Little Heritage Significance’ have very little original fabric left. Many footbridges in this category can retain much of the original steel beam deck support and substructure (usually steel lattice trestles). However they have had other modifications which mean they no longer contribute to the railway heritage precinct such as unsympathetic roof coverings and/or sections of balustrading (GAO 2016: 53). The exception is when such footbridges are also contributing highly to the overall heritage values of the station precinct – in these cases the footbridges are given a higher significance rating (usually ‘Moderate’) even though their loss of original fabric is considerable (GAO, 2016:52). The following conservation strategy applies to footbridges of little heritage significance: STRATEGY 11. Railway station footbridges of Little heritage significance can be conserved and adapted to meet contemporary requirements or demolished. IMPLEMENTATION Note that ‘conservation’ can include sympathetic ‘adaptation’ to ensure the footbridge has a sustainable future. Prior to demolition provide an archival record of the footbridge in accordance with Section 5.6 of this Study. The Panania footbridge retains its steel trestle substructure, but its concrete decking and original balustrading have been replaced. The relationship of the footbridge to the precinct is key, and the Panania footbridge is a later addition to the Inter War Functionalist station precinct and makes little contribution to the overall heritage values of the place. Based on this, the footbridge would not meet the threshold for being a locally significant footbridge in its own right nor a contributory element to heritage significance. Toongabbie, Pendle Hill and Leightonfield are footbridges with ramps being retained and conserved as representative of ‘type’ which make stronger contributions to their contemporaneous station precincts.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 27

5.0 Significance Assessment

5.1 Introduction In order to understand how a development would impact on a heritage item, it is essential to understand why an item is significant. An assessment of significance is undertaken to explain why a particular item is important and to enable the appropriate site management and curtilage to be determined. Cultural significance is defined in The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013 (ICOMOS (Australia), 2013) as meaning "aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations" (Article 1.2). Cultural significance may be derived from a place’s fabric, association with a person or event, or for its research potential. The significance of a place is not fixed for all time, and what is of significance to us now may change as similar items are located, more historical research is undertaken and community tastes change. The process of linking this assessment with an item's historical context has been developed through the NSW Heritage Management System and is outlined in the guideline Assessing Heritage Significance (NSW Heritage Office, 2001), part of the NSW Heritage Manual (Heritage Branch, Department of Planning). The Assessing Heritage Significance guidelines establish seven evaluation criteria (which reflect four categories of significance and whether a place is rare or representative) under which a place can be evaluated in the context of State or local historical themes. Similarly, a heritage item can be significant at a local level (i.e. to the people living in the vicinity of the site), at a State level (i.e. to all people living within NSW) or be significant to the country as a whole and be of National or Commonwealth significance. In accordance with the guideline Assessing Heritage Significance, an item would be considered to be of State significance if it meets two or more criteria at a State level, or of local heritage significance if it meets one or more of the criteria outlined in Table 3. The Heritage Council require the summation of the significance assessment into a succinct paragraph, known as a Statement of Significance. The Statement of Significance is the foundation for future management and impact assessment. Table 3 Significance assessment criteria

Criterion Inclusions/Exclusions Criterion (a) – an item is important in the course, or The site must show evidence of significant human pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the activity or maintains or shows the continuity of cultural or natural history of the local area). historical process or activity. An item is excluded if it has been so altered that it can no longer provide evidence of association. Criterion (b) – an item has strong or special The site must show evidence of significant human association with the life or works of a person, or group occupation. An item is excluded if it has been so of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural altered that it can no longer provide evidence of history (or the cultural or natural history of the local to association. area). Criterion (c) – an item is important in demonstrating An item can be excluded on the grounds that it has aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of lost its design or technical integrity or its landmark creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the local qualities have been more than temporarily degraded. area). Criterion (d) – an item has strong or special This criterion does not cover importance for reasons association with a particular community or cultural of amenity or retention in preference to proposed group in NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or alternative. spiritual reasons. Criterion (e) – an item has potential to yield Under the guideline, an item can be excluded if the information that will contribute to an understanding of information would be irrelevant or only contains NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or information available in other sources. natural history of the local area). Significance under this criterion must have the potential to yield new or further substantial information.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 28

Criterion Inclusions/Exclusions Criterion (f) – an item possesses uncommon, rare or An item is excluded if it is not rare or if it is numerous, endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural but under threat. The item must demonstrate a history (or the cultural or natural history of the local process, custom or other human activity that is in area). danger of being lost, is the only example of its type or demonstrates designs or techniques of interest. Criterion (g) – an item is important in demonstrating An item is excluded under this criterion if it is a poor the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s (or example or has lost the range of characteristics of a local area’s): type. - cultural or natural places cultural or natural environments.

5.2 Panania Railway Station Group Panania Station has been assessed against the SHR criteria in the Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register to determine the level of significance and related statutory protection. The existing assessment of significance is provided in Table 4. Table 4 Significance assessment – Panania Station

Significance Criteria Application of Criteria (Existing Assessment) Historical significance Panania Station is of historical significance as part of the East Hills line, a major SHR criteria (a) depression period public work undertaken under the controversial Premiership of Jack Lang, as a transport hub for the suburb of Panania since 1931 and through its relationship to the development of Panania and the broader East Hills region. The austere design of the Platform Building is reflective of the completion of the East Hills line as a Depression period unemployment relief works project. Historical association N/A significance SHR criteria (b) Aesthetic significance Panania Station is of aesthetic significance as an example of a small Inter War SHR criteria (c) period suburban railway building matching other East Hills line railway station buildings in design and style. The Platform Building is very austere in style, with Inter War Art Deco style touches (for example decorative brick detail to parapets) and is competently executed, exhibiting fine workmanship in its brickwork. The Platform Building is noted for its original use of monochromatic brickwork, stepped parapets, irregular fenestration and engaged piers. The Location Hut at Panania demonstrates a pre-cast construction technique commonly used by NSW Railways in the Inter War period. Social significance The place has the potential to contribute to the local community's sense of place, SHR criteria (d) and can provide a connection to the local community's past. Technical/Research Panania Station is of research significance for its ability to demonstrate design and significance construction techniques of the Inter War period. The building provides insights into SHR criteria (e) NSW Railways experimentation with styles of architecture and adaptation to Depression period economic conditions.

Rarity Panania Station Platform Building is not rare, as it is part of a group of 10 similar to SHR criteria (f) identical Inter War suburban railway buildings completed in 1931 between Turrella and East Hills. Representativeness Panania Station is a good representative example of an East Hills line railway SHR criteria (g) station. The Location Hut at Panania is a good representative pre-cast concrete structure, one of many other examples in the NSW Railway network. Integrity/Intactness The station, Platform Building and footbridge structure have retained integrity externally and internally, despite the painting of the exterior brickwork and 1956 extension to the Platform Building.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 29

The existing Statement of Significance (which contains errors for dates for the footbridge and Location Hut) reads as follows: Panania Station - including the 1931 platform, Platform Building, footbridge and Location Hut - is of local heritage significance. Panania Station has historical significance as a major public work completed as an unemployment relief project during the Great Depression, and as a major transport hub for the suburb of Panania since 1931. Panania Station Platform Building is of aesthetic significance as an austere 1930s railway building with simple Art Deco detailing and fine brick workmanship that is evocative of the effects of the Depression on building programs for the NSW Railways. Panania Station is representative of the cohesive collection of 10 East Hills line railway stations from Turrella to East Hills. (NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, 2016)

5.3 Grading of Significant Elements As different elements of an item can have a different contribution to its heritage significance, it is sometimes useful to define which elements are of significance and which may detract from its significance. The NSW Heritage Division (NSW Heritage Office, 2001:11) use the grading criteria provided in Table 5. Table 5 Grading of significance criteria (from NSW Heritage Office, 2001:11)

Grading Justification Status

Exceptional Rare or outstanding element directly contributing Fulfils criteria for local or State listing. to an item’s local and State significance.

High High degree of original fabric. Demonstrates a Fulfils criteria for local or State listing. key element of the item’s significance. Alterations do not detract from significance.

Moderate Altered or modified elements. Elements with little Fulfils criteria for local or State listing. heritage value, but which contribute to the overall significance of the item.

Little Alterations detract from significance. Difficult to Does not fulfil criteria for local or State listing. interpret.

Intrusive Damaging to the item’s heritage significance. Does not fulfil criteria for local or State listing.

Rappoport Pty Ltd (Rappoport Pty Ltd, 2015a) assessed the individual elements comprising the Panania Railway Station Group as part of their Heritage Options analysis for the Proposal. AECOM’s grading concurs with the Rappoport assessment for all but the reversing ramps which AECOM has assessed as ‘intrusive’ rather than ‘little’. The Rappoport survey did not assess the Location Hut, which has been included in this report. The Rappoport report graded the footbridge as ‘High’, however, in light of updated research, the footbridge does not make a contribution to the overall values of the precinct and is considered to have ‘Little’ heritage significance (refer Section 4.2). The platform canopies were also not in the Rappoport 2015 assessment. AECOM has assessed these canopies as ‘intrusive’ based on their unsympathetic attachment to the Platform Building, the poor reconciliation of the roof and awning junctions and general visual obscuring of the Platform Building are considered damaging to the Platform Building’s heritage significance. The amended grading is presented in Table 6.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 30

Table 6 Panania Station grading of fabric

Grading Element meeting criteria

Exceptional n/a

High Platform Building (1931/1956), Platform including brick edging (1931)

Moderate Location Hut (c1940s)

Little Footbridge (c1956)

Intrusive Platform Canopies (2010), All visually intrusive conduits, AC units, downpipes, operation equipment and paint scheme on the Platform Building exterior

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 31

6.0 Proposal description and impacts The following sections provide a description of the Proposal associated with the Proposal and are followed by a detailed assessment of the potential impacts to identified heritage significance.

6.1 Project Drivers Sydney’s population is expected to increase from 4.3 million currently to almost six million by 2036. Over the same period demand for rail travel is expected to grow by at least 50 per cent as a result of both population growth and a continued modal shift to sustainable transport modes (Jacobs 2015: 4). The environment at and around rail stations, as the point of entry to the rail network, would be a significant factor in affecting mode choice for travellers. Transport interchanges, train stations and commuter car parks are important gateways to the transport system and as such play a critical role in shaping the customer experience and perception of public transport. The objective of TfNSW’s Transport Access Program (TAP) is to “provide a better experience for public transport customers by delivering accessible, modern, secure and integrated transport infrastructure”. Station upgrades are designed to deliver improved travel to and between modes, encourage greater public transport use and better integrate interchanges with the role and function of town centres. The program details six aims in the provision of these upgrades to deliver all components of this objective, summarised below: - stations that are accessible to those with a disability, the elderly, parents/carer with prams, and customers with luggage - modern buildings and facilities for all modes that meet the needs of a growing population - modern interchanges that support an integrated network and allow seamless transfers between all modes for all customers - safety improvements including extra lighting, help points, fences and security measures for car parks and interchanges including stations, bus stops and wharves - signage improvements so customers can more easily use public transport and transfer between modes at interchanges - other improvements and maintenance such as painting, new fencing and roof replacements (Transport for NSW, 2016). External drivers for the Proposal are linked to the surrounding interchange, town centre, and wider community, whist internal drivers revolve around customer experience, minimisation of disruption, constructability, accessibility and value for money. The Proposal fulfils the TAP objectives by proposed to provide: - a station that is accessible to those with a disability, the ageing, parents/carers with prams and customers with luggage - improved customer experience (weather protection, better interchange facilities and visual appearance) - minimised pedestrian conflict and crowding points - improved integration with surrounding precinct - improved customer safety - improved wayfinding in and around the station - minimise impacts to heritage features - improved customer amenity. The Proposal is also consistent with planning strategies in NSW, including NSW 2021 – A plan to make NSW Number One (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2011) and the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (Transport for NSW, 2012).The Proposal would also ensure that Panania Station would meet legislative requirements under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (DSAPT).

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 32

6.2 Options selection Options for improving the access to, and amenity of, Panania Railway Station Group were developed following a succession of workshops between TfNSW, relevant stakeholders and the design team taking heritage aspects into consideration. Three concept design options were initially developed to address accessibility and customer experience needs and other design principles, and a fourth option was added at a later stage during the process which was a developed version of one of the initial three options. The key differences focused on retention or demolition of the footbridge and ramps as summarised below: - Option 1 proposed the installation of three new lifts with an associated concourse adjacent to the existing footbridge, and upgrades to the station entrances. The existing stairs and ramps would be retained. This option would involve property acquisition on the southern side of the station to allow the southernmost lift to be installed. No new canopies for weather protection were provided in this option - Option 2 proposed the installation of three new lifts with an associated concourse adjacent to the existing footbridge, similar to Option 1. However for this option the existing stairs and ramps would also be demolished and replaced with new Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)-compliant stairs to access the island platform. This option would involve property acquisition on the southern side of the station to allow the southernmost lift to be installed. A new canopy for weather protection would also be installed across the existing footbridge and new stairs - Option 3 proposed the replacement of the existing footbridge with a new pedestrian bridge to the east of the existing footbridge with new canopies and station entry plazas. The existing footbridge, ramps and stairs would be used for station access during construction, and then demolished. This option would involve property acquisition on the southern side of the station - Option 3b was later developed as a derivative of Option 3, and proposed the replacement of the existing footbridge with a new pedestrian bridge, new canopies and station entry plazas, however the new pedestrian bridge would be installed to the west of the existing footbridge. The existing ramps would initially be demolished and the footbridge and stairs would later be demolished once used for station access during construction. This option would not involve any property acquisition. Option 3b was not assessed as part of the heritage options analysis phase, as it was developed later. However in the heritage assessment of the three options undertaken by Rappoport, Option 2 was considered the preferred concept from a heritage standpoint as the proposed removal of the ramps and retention of the footbridge were seen as a positive over Option 3 (which is similar to Option 3b) which proposed the demolition of the footbridge which at that time was assess as having a moderate heritage value. Overall, Option 3b (a derivative of Option 3) was progressed as the preferred option, as it would provide the benefits of Option 3 but with less property impacts (no acquisition) and the western alignment of the pedestrian bridge better accommodated a key pedestrian desire line.. Option 3b also presented an opportunity for significant cost and time savings.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 33

6.3 The Proposal The key features of the Proposal are shown in Figure 45 and are summarised as follows: - demolition of the existing footbridge, ramps and stairs and construction of a new replacement pedestrian bridge to the west of the existing footbridge along with new stairs at both station entrances and down to the platform (shown in Figure 46) - construction and installation of three new lifts and associated landings and support structures to provide access to the pedestrian bridge and down to the station entrances and platform - new canopies for weather protection installed over both station entrances and along the new pedestrian bridge, stairs, lift landings - replacement of the existing canopy immediately east of the Platform Building to connect to the new canopy that would extend down from the stairs (the canopy on the western side of the Platform Building would be retained) - anti-throw screens installed on the pedestrian bridge and stairs - refurbishment of the heritage Platform Building to upgrade customer and staff facilities including: • the infill of the existing doorway to the waiting room and demolition of internal partition walls to modify the building layout for the new family accessible toilet, new unisex toilet and upgraded communications room, store room and cleaner’s room • the internal fit out would require construction of new internal walls/doors and the replacement/installation of some tiles, paint and fixtures and polishing of floor boards • some minor internal refurbishment works would also be undertaken in the existing ticketing office and meal room (i.e. new paint/tiles, fixtures, equipment) • an upgrade of the existing Customer Information Window which would include lengthening the opening to ensure a compliant height • small openings in the external fabric to connect services/conduits etc - localised regrading of the existing island platform to provide compliant gradient (i.e. transverse slope) of maximum 1 in 40 (where required) for customer safety - other platform modifications including resurfacing, new tactiles (where required) and relocation/replacement of seats etc to ensure compliant accessible paths of travel - additional CCTV coverage and help points on the island platform - adjustment to station ticketing facilities (including Opal card readers and top up machines) and passenger information display screens - services relocation including the undergrounding of a section of High Voltage electrical cables on the northern side of the station, communications, signalling cables and overhead wiring (see Section 3.2.8 of the REF further details) - station power supply upgrade works, which may include an upgrade to the existing transformer (specific power requirements to be determined during detailed design) - new/upgraded wayfinding signage and provision of statutory/regulatory signage - upgrades to fencing and landscaping for areas affected by the works - temporary works (where required) during construction in order to maintain existing pedestrian ‘level of service’ including the provision of temporary access stairs to the existing footbridge (to allow demolition of the ramps), temporary toilets and ticketing facilities - temporary site compounds for storage of materials and equipment. Figure 47 and Figure 48 provide artist’s impressions of the Proposal.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 34

Figure 45 Key Features of Panania Station Upgrade, Indicative only and subject to detailed design

Figure 46 Architectural design, north elevation .Indicative only and subject to detailed design (Source: Jacobs, 2015)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 35

Figure 47 Artist’s impression of the Proposal – view of northern entrance from Anderson Avenue (north) - indicative only and subject to detailed design (Source: Jacobs, 2015)

Figure 48 Artist’s impression of the Proposal – view of southern entrance - indicative only and subject to detailed design (Source: Jacobs, 2015)

6.4 Proposal Impacts 6.4.1 Engineering Scope Materials and finishes for the Proposal have been selected based on the criteria of durability, low maintenance and cost effectiveness, to accord with heritage requirements, to minimise visual impacts, and to be aesthetically pleasing. Each of the upgraded or new facilities would be constructed from a range of different materials, that contain graffiti resistant properties and with a different palette for each architectural element. Subject to detailed design, the Proposal would include the following:

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 36

- new pedestrian bridge – concrete and steel frame with aluminium panels, glazing, louvres and anti-throw screens along the façade - lift shafts – concrete base with steel columns/frame and glazing - stairs – concrete and steel frame with galvanized steel hand rails and anti-throw screens - roof and canopies – would likely comprise painted steel frame with Colorbond roof sheeting with gutters and downpipes. The design would be submitted to TfNSW’s Urban Design and Sustainability Review Panel at various stages for comment before being accepted by TfNSW. An Urban Design Plan (UDP) and/or Public Domain Plan would also be prepared by the Contractor, prior to finalisation of detailed design for endorsement by TfNSW. 6.4.2 Platform Building Refurbishment The interior of the Platform Building has already been modified to suit the changing needs of the station. The proposed alterations to the Platform Building include (subject to detailed design): - interior reconfiguration including: • conversion of the existing male and female toilets to one family accessible toilet and one unisex toilet • expansion of the existing communication room (refer to Figure 13) by annexing the waiting room and removing a section of (non-original) wall • removal of the (non-original) existing weatherboard partition wall between the female toilet and adjacent store room to the east • removal of the (non-original) wall between the female toilet and the store room to the west • removal of a section of original wall between the existing store room and male toilet • conversion of the public waiting room to a communications room. - external modifications including: • blocking off the northern entrance to the existing waiting room • enlargement of the opening to the Customer Information Window at the eastern end of the station • installation of new services in the communications room to meet the existing and future needs of the station. Refer to Section 6.5 for the assessment of impacts to the heritage significance of the railway station group resulting from the Proposal.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 37

Figure 49 Existing Platform Building layout – spaces of earlier alterations (which includes extension of building) indicated in red, with non-original walls within that space shown in green (Source: AECOM)

Figure 50 Proposed new layout, subject to detailed design. Section in blue indicates original wall which would likely be impacted by the Proposal (Source: TfNSW)

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 38

6.4.3 Earthworks The Proposal would require a small amount of earthworks. Excavations and earthworks would generally be required for the following: - the foundations for the replacement pedestrian bridge, stairs and pits for the proposed lift shafts, which would require excavation at the station platform and excavation into soils/fill and shale rock up to a depth of around three metres - trenching excavation for services within the rail corridor (including the High Voltage electrical cables) to a minimum depth of one metre on rail property or two metres if crossing beneath the railway - the construction of upgraded footpaths (e.g. island refuge and raised pedestrian crossing) and entry plaza areas, and kerb ramp installation/realignment works - other minor civil works including ground levelling from demolition of existing footbridge and ramps, footings and foundations of the structures and drainage/stormwater works. 6.4.4 Ancillary facilities Temporary construction compounds are required to accommodate a site office, amenities, laydown and storage area for materials. The following locations are being considered for use as construction compounds: - an area to the west of the existing northern ramp within the rail corridor, adjacent to Edwards Reserve - an area to the west of the southern station entrance within the rail corridor. Temporary storage/laydown areas may also be required on the island platform. Figure 51 shows the proposed works areas, indicative construction compound locations and HV electrical cable relocation. Refer to Section 6.4 for an assessment of impacts to heritage fabric and significance resulting from the Proposal, as well as Section 6.5.2 ‘Summary of Archaeological Potential and Impacts’ for an assessment of potential disturbance to below and above ground archaeology. There are no anticipated heritage impacts from the removal of trees as required for the Proposal.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 39

Figure 51 Proposed works area and High Voltage electrical cable route

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 40

6.5 Impacts to Heritage Significance – Panania Railway Station Group Potential impacts to the heritage significance of Panania Station as a result of the Proposal are summarised in Table 7. Table 7 Assessment of impacts to heritage significance of the Panania Railway Station Group

Action Impact to Heritage Significance Panania Station is of historical significance as part of the East Hills line, a major depression period public work undertaken under the controversial Premiership of Historical Jack Lang, as a transport hub for the suburb of Panania since 1931 and through its significance relationship to the development of Panania and the broader East Hills region. The SHR criteria (a) austere design of the Platform Building is reflective of the completion of the East Hills line as a Depression period unemployment relief works project.

Demolition Footbridge, stairs and ramps Demolition of the existing footbridge, stairs and ramps would remove an element identified as making little contribution to the significance of the station precinct and this action is not considered to impact on the precinct’s historical significance. Strategy 11 of the Draft Footbridge Heritage Conservation Strategy states that railway station footbridges of Little heritage significance can be conserved and adapted to meet contemporary requirements or demolished. An archival record of the footbridge is recommended in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Strategy document.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 41

Action Impact to Heritage Significance

Construction Platform Building Internal and external refurbishment of the Platform Building (as described in Section 6.4.2) would result in a new spatial arrangement for some of the rooms of the Platform Building, however this can be seen as continuity of use, as the function of the rooms have changed and evolved since the 1930s including a 2-bay extension to the building in 1956 - which contributes to an understanding of the manner in which the building has been used to meet the evolving needs of staff and customers. These impacts can be mitigated through an archival recording and a movable heritage survey and assessment, and input into the next phase of design by a suitably qualified heritage architect (refer to Section 8.0). The installation of new services within the Platform Building would also be required to meet the existing and future needs of the station. This installation may require small openings in the external fabric of the Platform Building to connect services/conduits etc. These impacts can be managed through via mitigation outlined in Section 8.0), including that new services, outlets, wall units and brackets (etc.) should be located in areas already modified and/or consolidated in one location. Existing openings in ceilings are the preferred location for the installation of new services. The Customer Information Window on the eastern side of the Platform Building is currently covered over, however appears complete with timber framing and features stop chamfered brickwork to the opening. The Proposal involves an upgrade of the existing Customer Information Window, which would include lengthening the opening to ensure a DDA-compliant height. Mitigation outlined in Section 8.0 would be implemented to minimise potential heritage impacts, such as the avoidance of new openings into the original masonry of the Platform Building, and that any enlargement required for the upgraded Customer Information Window should be restrained and kept to a minimum. New pedestrian bridge, lifts and stairs Construction of the new pedestrian bridge structure would result in minor impacts to the platform namely: regrading in non-slip asphaltic concrete, excavation required for the new lifts, stairs and canopies. Brick edging would not be impacted by regrading of platform. These impacts can be mitigated through a pre-construction archival recording of the platform. The Proposal would contribute to Panania Station’s ability to demonstrate the evolution of a medium sized railway station to the changing expectations and requirements of rail passengers. It would effectively be the next layer in the pattern of human use, and continue the station’s function to facilitate the movement of people. Construction would not impact on the station precinct’s historical significance. Location Hut Construction of the Proposal would include activities (such as excavation) that would cause vibration. Vibration can poses a risk to the structural integrity of heritage structures and can result in indirect impacts, such as cracks. The Location Hut is located to the northeast of the station platform and would not be directly impacted by the Proposal. To manage indirect impacts from vibration, the Location Hut should be demarcated as a constraint / no-go area during construction (refer to Section 8.0).

Temporary Temporary enabling works would not impact on the historical significance of the station. Enabling Works

Services and Landscaping and High Voltage service relocation would not impact on the historical Landscaping significance of the station.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 42

Action Impact to Heritage Significance Historical association No assessment provided against this criterion. significance SHR criteria (b) Panania Station is of aesthetic significance as an example of a small Inter War period suburban railway building matching other East Hills line railway station buildings in design and style. The Platform Building is very austere in style, with Aesthetic Inter War Art Deco style touches (for example decorative brick detail to parapets) significance and is competently executed, exhibiting fine workmanship in its brickwork. The SHR criteria (c) Platform Building is noted for its original use of monochromatic brickwork, stepped parapets, irregular fenestration and engaged piers. The Location Hut at Panania demonstrates a pre-cast construction technique commonly used by NSW railways in the Inter War period.

Demolition Demolition of the existing footbridge, stairs and ramps would not impact on the aesthetic significance of the railway precinct as a small Inter War period station, as the footbridge is a later addition and did not form part of the original design or concept.

Construction Platform Building and platform There are opportunities to improve the appearance of the Platform Building through the refurbishment such as removal of all visually intrusive elements such as external services and air conditioning units, as well as rectify the paint scheme. Importantly, the eastern canopy would be replaced and the new design does not attach to the eastern elevation of the Platform Building. While the existing bulky and visually obtrusive canopy to the east of the Platform Building would be replaced, the current concept design of the replacement canopy appears obtrusive and is likely to continue to overwhelm the Platform Building. During the detailed design stage, further refinement of the canopy design should be investigated. This could include increasing the visual separation between the eastern canopy and the Platform Building (such as providing a glass interface) to improve the heritage setting by minimising connections to heritage fabric so as not to detract from the Platform Building. Mitigation outlined in Section 8.0 outlines the aspects requiring further consideration during the detailed design stage to further refine the canopy design to ensure the Platform Building is the dominant feature on the platform, that the canopies compliment the Platform Building, and the Platform Building retains as much heritage value as possible. Internal Platform Building refurbishment works are not yet subject to detailed design and would be guided in the next design phase though the input of a heritage consultant. The Proposal would impact the platform through the installation (requiring excavation) of piles for the new pedestrian bridge, footings for new canopies and the lift structures, and demolition of the existing stairs. These impacts can be mitigated through a pre- construction archival recording of the platform. New pedestrian bridge The design intent of the Proposal is to improve accessibility to the station in a manner that respects the local context. Efforts have also been made to reduce the scale and bulk of the station entrances by placing the southern entrance behind (and in-between) the existing buildings. The colours, materials and finishes (such as glass cladding for the lifts) have been selected for their visually recessive nature. The eastern replacement canopy has been addressed above. Location Hut The Location Hut would not be adversely impacted by construction of the Proposal.

Temporary The temporary works (including temporary access stairs) would have no long-term Enabling Works impacts to aesthetic significance.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 43

Action Impact to Heritage Significance

Services and Landscaping and installation of the services may have an impact on the station during Landscaping construction, but would not have a long-term impact. Tree and vegetation removal would have no impact on the recognised heritage significance of the station.

Social significance The place has the potential to contribute to the local community's sense of place SHR criteria (d) and can provide a connection to the local community's history.

Demolition It is unknown whether the local community values the existing footbridge. However any impact to social significance would be mitigated through interpretation signage which is proposed to be installed to reflect on the previous footbridge.

Construction The construction of the Proposal would provide an accessible path of travel to the island platform which would allow customers to appreciate the heritage significance of the station. The proposed alterations to the Platform Building would make the building more user friendly. It is anticipated that the construction would have a positive impact on the local community’s identification with the station.

Temporary While the rearrangement of the facilities may temporarily inconvenience some local Enabling Works users, this would not, in the long-term, effect the social significance of the station to the community.

Services & The proposed services and landscaping would not impact on the social significance of Landscaping the station. The proposed services and landscaping would support the objective of equitable access at the station and have positive long-term impacts.

Technical/ Panania Station is of research significance for its ability to demonstrate design Research and construction techniques of the Inter War period. The Platform Building significance provides insights into NSW railways experimentation with styles of architecture SHR criteria (e) and adaptation to Depression period economic conditions.

Demolition The existing footbridge is not specifically identified in this assessment against the criterion and does not demonstrate or represent a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (refer to Section 4.2).

Construction Construction of the new pedestrian bridge, stairs, lifts and canopies would not impact negatively on the technical significance of the station group, and in fact shows ‘continuity of use pattern’ in the ‘experimentation with styles of architecture and adaptation ‘to particular economic conditions, as highlighted in the assessment against criteria (NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, 2016). The construction works associated with the internal refurbishment of the Platform Building would result in a reconfiguration of interior spaces, and some impacts to original fabric. However the building has been subject to many modifications, including an extension and previous spatial reconfiguration. Construction would not impact on technical or research significance of the Platform Building or platform, nor on areas of archaeological potential.

Temporary Temporary works are not located in areas of archaeological potential and would not Enabling Works impact on the technical significance of the station group. No long-term impacts are anticipated.

Services & Installation or rerouting of services, and landscaping would not impact on the technical Landscaping significance or research value of the station, nor in areas of archaeological potential.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 44

Action Impact to Heritage Significance The Platform Building is part of a group of 10 similar to identical Inter War Rarity suburban railway buildings completed in 1931 between Turrella and East Hills and SHR criteria (f) is not considered rare.

Demolition The footbridge is not specifically identified in this assessment against the criterion. Demolition of this element would not impact on the rarity of the station, as outlined in Section 4.2.

Construction The station group is not assessed as rare and therefore construction would not have an impact on this criterion.

Temporary The station group is not assessed as rare and therefore temporary enabling works would Enabling Works not have an impact on this criterion.

Services & The station group is not assessed as rare and therefore services and landscaping would Landscaping not have an impact on this criterion.

Panania Station is a good representative example of an East Hills line railway Representativeness station. The Location Hut at Panania is a good representative pre-cast concrete SHR criteria (g) structure, one of many other examples in the NSW railway network

Demolition The proposed demolition of the existing footbridge, stairs and ramps would not impact on Panania Station’s representativeness as a small Inter War East Hills line railway station.

Construction The proposed construction would not negatively impact on items identified as contributing to the representative significance of the station group. Specifically, the Location Hut would not be adversely impacted by the Proposal.

Temporary The temporary enabling works would not impact on the representativeness of the station Enabling Works group while they are in place, and would have no long-term impact.

Services & The services and landscaping would not impact on the representativeness of the station Landscaping group while they are in place, and would have no long-term impact.

Intactness/ Integrity Panania Railway Station Group has retained built integrity, although the precinct is impacted by the later addition of the footbridge, stairs, ramps and canopies. The ‘intactness’ of the Platform Building has been somewhat comprised by previous unsympathetic modifications including services, Customer Information Window, attachment of 2010 canopies, spatial reconfiguration, and exterior paintwork.

6.5.1 Summary of Heritage Impacts In summary, the Proposal is required for station facilities to comply with key requirements of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 and Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Currently, the existing footbridge does not provide DDA compliant access to the platform or compliant grades to the pedestrian network. The Proposal would remove the existing footbridge structure, which is a later addition to the Inter War Functionalist station precinct and makes little contribution to the overall heritage values of the station. The existing footbridge, stairs and ramps retains only its steel trestle substructure as original fabric, having had its decking and balustrading replaced in 2007. The new pedestrian bridge would demonstrate continued pattern of use and functionality of the station. The introduction of a new pedestrian bridge, lifts and stairs into the precinct would not impact on the station precinct’s historical, associative, technical, rarity or representative values. The replacement of the eastern platform canopy is proposed to address the current bulky and visually obtrusive canopy. However, the current concept design of the replacement canopy (which would is detached form the Platform Building) appears visually bulky and obtrusive, and would likely continue to overwhelm the Platform Building, detracting from its (‘high’ significance). The replacement of the eastern canopy presents an opportunity to further rectify previous unsympathetic modifications and improve the aesthetic value of the Platform Building (aesthetic significance (criterion c). During the detailed design stage, further refinement of the canopy design should be investigated. This could include increasing the visual separation between the eastern canopy and the

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 45

Platform Building (such as providing a glass interface) to improve the heritage setting by minimising connections to heritage fabric so as not to detract from the Platform Building. Mitigation outlined in Section 8.0 outlines the aspects requiring further consideration during the detailed design stage to further refine the canopy design to ensure the Platform Building is the dominant feature on the platform, that the canopies compliment the Platform Building, and the Platform Building retains as much heritage value as possible. There is some concern around the bulk and scale of the canopy design (aesthetic significance, criterion c) for the footbridge and lifts, and a recommendation for these to be further refined during detailed design has been included as a mitigation measure. The Platform Building has been assessed as a key element demonstrating the item’s significance (‘high’ significance). None of the specific features noted in the assessment against criteria (decorative brick detail to parapet, monochromatic brickwork, stepped parapets, irregular fenestration and engaged piers) would be impacted by the proposed refurbishment as these exterior features would not be impacted. The refurbishment of the Platform Building also presents an opportunity to rectify decades of unsympathetic modifications to its façade and improve aesthetic value to the precinct (aesthetic significance (criterion c). This would include the replacement of the eastern canopy from the Platform Building and the restoration of fabric, where feasible. It is also recommended that detachment of the western canopy from the Platform Building be considered during detailed design. The proposed refurbishment would reactivate the use of the Platform Building and ensure its ongoing maintenance. The details regarding the internal and external modifications to the Platform Building (such as the extent of impact on the internal and external walls, final materials and finishes) would be subject to further consideration and heritage assessment during the detailed design phase with the intent of minimising impacts to heritage fabric as far as practicable. The Proposal has the potential to positively impact on the social (criterion d) significance through provision of equitable access to the station and refurbishment of the under-utilised Platform Building. The temporary enabling works, services and landscaping would have no long-term impacts on the assessed heritage significance. 6.5.2 Summary of Archaeological Potential and Impacts The potential for the survival of archaeological relics in a particular place is significantly affected by activities which may have caused ground disturbance. These processes include the physical development of the site and the activities that occurred there. The likelihood for the survival of these relics (i.e. their archaeological potential) is distinct from the archaeological/heritage significance of these remains, should any exist. For example, there may be ‘low potential’ for certain relics to survive, but if they do, they may be assessed as being of ‘high significance’. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the land surrounding the study area was either vacant or used for small orchards, dairying and poultry farms. Archaeological evidence relating to the pastoral history of the study area would be expected to have been ephemeral in nature. Early 19th century evidence relating to this land use, such as fences / postholes, furrows, tracks and early dams, is likely to have been destroyed or displaced during the original construction of the railway line. The following excavations and earthworks associated with the Proposal would be required: - the foundations for the new pedestrian bridge structure, pits for the proposed lift shafts, temporary stairs and canopy footings (which would require excavation within the station platform and excavation into soils/fill and shale rock up to a depth of around three metres - trenching excavation for services within the rail corridor (including the High Voltage electrical cables) to a minimum depth of one metre on rail property or two metres if crossing beneath the railway - the construction of upgraded footpaths (e.g. island refuge and raised pedestrian crossing) and entry plaza areas, and kerb ramp installation/realignment works - other minor civil works including ground levelling from demolition of existing footbridge and ramps, footings and foundations of the structures and drainage/stormwater works. Given the past land use, no areas of specific archaeological sensitivity have been identified and no archaeological permits are recommended to be obtained at this stage. However, the Heritage Council must be notified of the discovery of a relic under Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 46

7.0 Statement of Heritage Impact

7.1 Introduction The objective of a Statement of Heritage Impact is to evaluate and explain how the proposed development, rehabilitation or land use change would affect the heritage value of the site and/or place. A Statement of Heritage Impact should also address how the heritage value of the site/place can be conserved or maintained, or preferably enhanced by the Proposal. This report has been prepared in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office & Department of Urban Affairs and Planning NSW Heritage Manual (1996) and NSW Heritage Office Statements of Heritage Impact (NSW Heritage Office, 2002). The guidelines pose a series of questions as prompts to aid in the consideration of impacts due to the Proposal, based on the type of Proposal. The Proposal involves the demolition of structures (existing footbridge, ramps and stairs) as well as major additions to the station. The guideline suggests the following questions be used to direct discussion in relation to these two modification types: Demolition (relating to the existing footbridge, ramps and stairs) - have all options for retention and adaptive re-use been explored? - can all of the significant elements of the heritage item be kept and any new development be located elsewhere on the site? - is demolition essential at this time or can it be postponed in case future circumstances make its retention and conservation more feasible? - has the advice of a heritage consultant been sought? Have the consultant’s recommendations been implemented? If not, why not? Major Additions (relating to the new lifts and pedestrian bridge and stairs) - how is the impact of the addition on the heritage significance of the item to be minimised? - can the additional area be located within an existing structure? If not, why not? - will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? - is the addition sited on any known, or potentially significant archaeological deposits? If so, have alternative positions for the additions been considered? - are the additions sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way (e.g. form, proportions, design). These questions are addressed, based on the impacts to the heritage significance of the station, as outlined in Section 6.0.

7.2 Process Questions 7.2.1 Demolition (relating to the existing footbridge, ramps and stairs) Have all options for retention and adaptive re-use been explored? The existing footbridge, stairs and ramps have been assessed as having little contribution to the overall heritage values of the station precinct (refer Section 5.0). In addition, the existing footbridge does not currently comply with key requirements of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Can all of the significant elements of the heritage item be kept and any new development be located elsewhere on the site? Further heritage assessment is required following the detailed design of the Platform Building however it is proposed to retain the Platform Building and undertake modifications to improve customer amenity and accessibility. The new pedestrian bridge would be closer to the Platform Building than the existing footbridge to provide direct access across the railway, accommodate pedestrian desire lines and to allow for the existing footbridge to be used for temporary access during construction.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 47

It is recommended that a movable heritage assessment be undertaken to provide guidance around ‘objects in their place’ and possible interpretation within the station precinct complex. Is demolition essential at this time or can it be postponed in case future circumstances make its retention and conservation more feasible? To meet legislative requirements and the objectives of TfNSW’s Transport Access Program which are to provide equitable accessibility to the rail network, the Proposal cannot be postponed. Has the advice of a heritage consultant been sought? Have the consultant’s recommendations been implemented? If not, why not? TfNSW has sought advice from Rappoport Heritage Consultants and AECOM. As discussed in Section 6.2, the concept design options were assessed based on heritage merit. Whilst the Proposal (Option 3b) was not included in this initial options analysis phase, it is similar to the original Option 3, in that both propose the demolition of the existing footbridge and ramps. From a heritage perspective, the heritage options assessment report identified Option 2 as the preferred concept design which proposed the replacement of concrete ramps with stairs and retrofitting of lifts to the existing footbridge to result in a more compact and less visually obtrusive station. However from an engineering and constructability standpoint, Option 3b was selected as the preferred option. A heritage consultant would be involved during the next phase of detailed design. More information on the options assessment and justification for the preferred option is provided in Section 2.4 of the Panania Station Upgrade Review of Environmental Factors (AECOM, June 2016). 7.2.2 Major Additions (relating to the new lifts and pedestrian bridge) How is the impact of the addition on the heritage significance of the item to be minimised? The Proposal would contribute to Panania Station’s ability to demonstrate the evolution of a medium sized railway station to the changing expectations and requirements of rail passengers. It will effectively be the next layer in the pattern of human use. The station’s historical purpose - to facilitate the movement of people - will continue into the future. Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? Are the additions sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way (e.g. form, proportions, design)? The Proposal has been designed to minimise the visual impact of the new elements on the heritage station group, such as use of materials such as glazing for the lifts to create a more visually recessive structure that is separated from the Platform Building. Materials and finishes for the Proposal have been selected based on the criteria of durability, low maintenance and cost effectiveness, to accord with heritage requirements, to minimise visual impacts and to be aesthetically pleasing. The bulk (height and width) of the Proposal is greater than the existing footbridge, however this is necessary to comply with safety and rail operation standards. The current concept design for the replacement eastern canopy appears visually bulky and obtrusive and is likely to dominate the Platform Building. The current concept design is not considered to be a sympathetic addition to the heritage station. During the detailed design stage, further refinement of the canopy design should be investigated. This could include increasing the visual separation between the eastern canopy and the Platform Building (such as providing a glass interface) to improve the heritage setting by minimising connections to heritage fabric so as not to detract from the Platform Building. Mitigation outlined in Section 8.0 outlines the aspects requiring further consideration during the detailed design stage to further refine the canopy design to ensure the replacement canopy does not visually dominate the Platform Building, and that addition is sympathetic to the station precinct.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 48

Is the addition sited on any known, or potentially significant archaeological deposits? If so, have alternative positions for the additions been considered? Panania Railway Station Group has been assessed has having low potential for significant archaeological remains relating to the prior pastoral land use of the area, as this evidence is ephemeral in nature and is likely to have been destroyed or displaced during the original construction of the railway line. No areas of specific archaeological sensitivity have been identified and no archaeological permits are required at this stage. The Heritage Council must be notified of the discovery of a relic under Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977.

7.3 Statement of Heritage Impact From the assessment against the NSW Heritage Division guidelines (NSW Heritage Office, 2002), the potential impacts to the Panania Railway Station Group have been assessed. These are graded to determine their impact against the significance of the site and are detailed in Table 8. Table 8 Summary of the nature of the direct impacts

Impact Type Impact

Major negative impacts (substantially None affects fabric or values of state significance)

Moderate negative impacts (irreversible Removal of original fabric associated with refurbishment of Platform loss of fabric or values of local Building. Input and advice by a suitably qualified heritage consultant significance; minor impacts on State during detailed design would guide this process. Other mitigation significance) measures include a movable heritage assessment and archival recording. The current design of the new pedestrian bridge is likely to ‘overwhelm’ the heritage precinct based on its scale. Input and advice by a suitably qualified heritage consultant during detailed design would guide this process. Other mitigation measures include ensuring appropriate materials are selected and used that are visually recessive and do not detract from the Platform Building. The current design of the replacement eastern canopy is bulky and visually obtrusive, which would directly impact the aesthetic value of the Platform Building (aesthetic significance (criterion c). Section 8.0 outlines mitigation measures regarding the requirement for further refinement of the canopy design to be investigated during detailed design. This could include increasing the visual separation between the eastern canopy and the Platform Building (such as providing a glass interface) to improve the heritage setting by minimising connections to heritage fabric so as not to detract from the Platform Building. Canopy design refinement during detailed design should extend to all proposed canopies at the station and consider canopy columns, outer cornice edges and material selection to articulate and form profiles which may assist in minimising the bulk and height. Canopy design would be undertaken in accordance with the Sydney Trains / Asset Standard Authority (ASA) guide on canopy design currently being developed

Minor negative impacts (reversible loss of The existing footbridge would be removed, which was assessed as local significance fabric or where mitigation having ‘little’ heritage significance and does not contribute to the retrieves some value of significance; loss station precinct’s heritage values. Impacts resulting from this of fabric not of significance but which removal would be mitigated by archival recording and new heritage supports or buffers local significance interpretation signage installed as part of the new pedestrian bridge values) design.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 49

Impact Type Impact

Negligible or no impacts (does not affect None heritage values either negatively or positively)

Minor positive impacts (enhances access None to, understanding or conservation of fabric or values of local significance)

Major positive impacts (enhances access The Proposal would improve safety and accessibility and the station to, understanding or conservation of fabric would be enhanced following its refurbishment. The construction of or values of state significance) the new pedestrian bridge and lift structures would enable access to and appreciation of the station by a wider demographic. The Proposal also provides opportunity to rectify previous unsympathetic alterations, including paint rectification, replacement of 2010 eastern canopy from the Platform Building, and removal of AC units, conduits and other visually intrusive elements to building façade. It is also recommended that detachment of the western canopy from the Platform Building be considered during detailed design.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 50

8.0 Recommendations The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimise impacts to the heritage listed Panania Railway Station Group.

8.1 Recommendation 1 – Further heritage input and assessment required New pedestrian bridge, lifts and canopies Advice should be sought by a suitably qualified heritage consultant on the scale and form of the proposed canopies including selection of appropriate materials that are visually recessive and do not detract from the Platform Building. Platform Building refurbishment The development of the detailed design of the Platform Building and replacement canopy on the eastern side should be undertaken with the involvement of a suitably qualified heritage consultant. Advice should be sought on the scale and form of the proposed replacement canopy, as well as the following considerations for the Platform Building: - no new openings should be permitted into original masonry, and any enlargement required for the upgraded Customer Information Window should be restrained and kept to a minimum. Any enlargement to the adjacent Customer Information Window should not encroach within 200mm of the 1956 window opening - the 1956 ticket window (currently covered over) on the eastern façade should be retained and opportunities around interpretation investigated in consultation with the Sydney Trains Heritage Team - restore fabric where feasible, such as six-pane sash windows to original form, repoint brickwork, repair timber, replace flush panel doors with four-panel doors - investigate paint removal from the exterior of Platform Building - remove the existing air conditioning unit from the six-pane window to Platform 1 (northern façade) with any relocation avoiding new openings into original masonry - remove the intrusive air conditioning unit adjacent to the existing male toilet entrance (western façade) - original terrazzo sills should not be removed or replaced - bricked-in windows and doors should be unblocked (with the exception of the 1956 ticket window to avoid customer confusion), further infill of windows and doors should be avoided - detachment of the platform canopy at the west elevation of the Platform Building should be considered, as this connection is an unsympathetic junction and negatively impacts on the Platform Building’s aesthetic significance (only the eastern attachment forms part of the Proposal currently resulting from the eastern canopy replacement) - canopy column sizes should be reduced and located directly on the platform without raised concrete bases - the proposed outer cornice edge of canopies should be streamlined to further reduce bulk - all visually intrusive conduits and downpipes on the building exterior should be removed and relocated and signage should be rationalised to avoid visual clutter - new services, outlets, wall units and brackets (etc.) should be located in areas already modified and/or consolidated in one location. Existing openings in ceilings are the preferred location for the installation of new services. Further heritage assessment is also required for the Platform Building refurbishment once detailed designs are developed (which should take into consideration identified heritage constraints) in consultation with TfNSW and the Sydney Trains Heritage Team and should also be undertaken by a suitably qualified heritage consultant.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 51

8.1.1 Recommendation 2 – Movable heritage survey A movable heritage survey and assessment following NSW Heritage Division guidelines Movable Heritage Principles (NSW Heritage Office, 2000) and Objects in Their Place (NSW Heritage Office, 2004) should be prepared prior to any further design phases for the Platform Building. The assessment should provide a schedule of movable heritage objects, and a detailed management strategy for their safeguarding during and after Proposal. This assessment should also provide guidance on potential areas of interpretation for certain objects (such as the timber bench, phone, etc.)

8.2 Recommendation 3 – Archival recording Archival recording of the station as a whole prior to the commencement of construction following NSW Heritage Division guidelines Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture (NSW Heritage Office, 2006) and How to prepare archival records (NSW Heritage Office, 1998). Copies should be provided to the City of Canterbury-Bankstown Council and Sydney Trains for future reference. In particular the following elements should be concentrated on: - interior and exterior of Platform Building - existing footbridge, stairs and ramps.

8.3 Recommendation 4 – Salvage of material from the existing footbridge Material from the existing footbridge assessed as structurally sound and in good condition should be salvaged for repair of other similar footbridges. The Sydney Trains Heritage Team should be notified of the timeframe for demolition and an appropriate repository for the material nominated. The Sydney Trains Heritage Team should nominate structures where use of the salvaged elements is required. Appropriate storage and cataloguing of individual elements would be required.

8.4 Recommendation 5 – Protection of Location Hut during construction The Location Hut should be demarcated as a constraint / no-go area during construction to avoid potential impacts from construction impacts and vibration.

8.5 Recommendation 6 – Heritage interpretation Installation of new heritage interpretation at the new station entrances (similar to the other East Hills stations e.g. Narwee) should be developed which may include information and photographs of the original footbridge

8.6 Recommendation 7 – Notification to NSW Heritage Division Section 170 notification to the Heritage Division is required for major alteration including demolition of elements within a Section 170 listed precinct, namely the existing footbridge.

8.7 Recommendation 8 – Update of Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register listing Following completion of works, the Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register listing description and historical context should be updated to rectify the errors contained around dates of construction of the footbridge and ramps, and reflect the new works and elements within the precinct.

8.8 Recommendation 9 – Heritage induction A heritage induction should be provided to all on-site staff and contractors involved in the Proposal. The induction should clearly describe the heritage constraints of the site.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 52

8.9 Recommendation 10 – Stop Work Procedure The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to include stop work procedures in accordance with Transport for NSW’s (TfNSW’s) Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline (Transport for NSW, 2015) to manage activities in the unlikely event that intact archaeological relics or deposits are encountered.

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 53

9.0 References

34 Homes for Ex-Servicemen. (1946, August 21). Sydney Morning Herald, p. 3. Sydney, NSW.

AECOM. (2016). Panania Station Upgrade - Review of Environmental Factors, Sydney, NSW.

NSW Government Architect’s Office (GAO) Heritage Group. (2016). Draft Footbridges Heritage Conservation Strategy. Sydney. NSW.

Construction of New Surburban Line. (1928, April 17). Northern Standard, p. 6. Darwin.

Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2011). NSW 2021: A plan to make NSW Number One. Sydney, NSW: NSW Government.

Eco Logical Australia (ELA). ( 2016). Panania Station Upgrade-Flora and Fauna Assessment. Prepared for AECOM.

Halgren, S. (2014). Dulwich Hill Station. In Australian Rail Historical Society NSW Luncheon Club.

ICOMOS (Australia). (2013). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Burwood, Victoria: Australia ICOMOS. Retrieved from http://australia.icomos.org/wp- content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf

Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited. (2015). Panania Station Precinct Accessibility Upgrade Concept Plans Final Report. Unpublished report for Transport for NSW.

Jervis, J. (1951). A History of the Municipality of Canterbury. Canterbury, NSW: City of Canterbury.

Kingsgrove-East Hills: Railway officially opened. (1931, December 21). Sydney Morning Herald, p. 11. Sydney, NSW.

Madden, B. J. (1981). Tempe-East Hills Railway Line, NSW. Hurstville: Hurstville Historical Society.

Molloy, A. (2005). The history of Panania, Picnic Point and East Hills. Padstow Heights, NSW: Australian Media Pty Ltd.

NSW Heritage Office. (1998). How to Prepare Archival Records of Heritage Items. Heritage Information Series.

NSW Heritage Office. (2000). Heritage Information Series: Movable Heritage Principles. Parramatta, Sydney, Australia: NSW Heritage Office.

NSW Heritage Office. (2001). Assessing Heritage Significance. Parramatta. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/assessingheritagesignificance.pdf

NSW Heritage Office. (2002). Statements of Heritage Impact. Parramatta: Heritage Office. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/03_index.htm#S-U

NSW Heritage Office. (2004). Objects in Their Place: An Introduction to Movable Heritage. Parramatta, Sydney, Australia: NSW Heritage Office and Ministry for the Arts Movable Heritage Project.

NSW Heritage Office. (2006). Photographic recording of heritage items using film or digital capture. Parramatta: Heritage Office. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/info_photographicrecording2006.pdf

NSW Heritage Office, & NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. (1996). NSW Heritage Manual. Parramatta: Heritage Office & Department of Urban Affairs & Planning. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/03_index.htm#M-O

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602 AECOM Panania Station Upgrade – Statement of Heritage Impact 54

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. (2016). Panania Railway Station Group. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/HeritageItemImage.aspx?ID=4801926#ad-image-9

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. (2016a). Marrickville Railway Station Group. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=4801091

Pollon, F., & Healy, G. (1990). The Book of Sydney Suburbs. Angus & Robertson Publishers.

Railway Recommended. (1924, August 7). Sydney Morning Herald, p. 5. Sydney.

Rappoport Pty Ltd. (2015a). Heritage Constraints and Opportunities Panania Railway Station, Panania, NSW. Unpublished report for Jacobs Pty Ltd.

Rappoport Pty Ltd. (2015b). Heritage Options Assessment, Panania Railway Station, Panania NSW. Unpublished report for Jacobs Pty Ltd.

Sharp, S. (2012). The Railway at Eastwood: The story of what can happen when local residents and politicians are influential. Luncheon Club Notes. Australian Railway Historical Society. Retrieved from http://www.arhsnsw.com.au/lunchclubnotes/1208EastwoodStation.pdf

Tempe-East Hills line: Railway stations named. (1929, November 21). Sydney Morning Herald, p. 15. Sydney, NSW.

Transport for NSW. (2012). NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan. Sydney, NSW: NSW Government.

Transport for NSW. (2015). Unexpected Heritage Finds Guideline. Sydney, Australia: Transport for NSW.

Transport for NSW. (2016). Transport Access Program. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects-tap

1--June-2016 Prepared for – Transport for New South Wales – ABN: 18 804 239 602