Paddington Cube delayed as protesters take fight to Court of Appeal

Ross Lydall
Office block: the Paddington Cube

The Paddington Cube is facing further delays after campaigners launched a renewed appeal against the proposed £825 million office block.

Save Britain’s Heritage has submitted legal papers seeking permission to take its case to the Court of Appeal after losing a judicial review application in the High Court last November.

The action comes after a separate challenge from Imperial College Healthcare NHS trust was rejected by the High Court.

Imperial claims a new road layout required by the “floating” 14-storey Cube will delay emergency ambulance access to St Mary’s hospital.

Save is trying to prevent the demolition of an Edwardian former Royal Mail sorting office in London Street. It claims it was illegal for Communities Secretary Sajid Javid not to say why he refused a public inquiry into the planning application. Marcus Binney, executive president of Save, told the Standard: “We went to the High Court, where we lost. But our lawyers consider we have strong grounds for appeal. We have submitted papers to the Court of Appeal.”

The Cube was proposed by Great Western Developments and Sellar Property Group, which built the Shard, as a compromise after a 72-floor skyscraper dubbed the “Paddington Pole” sparked opposition.

Save claims the Cube will be detrimental to Brunel’s Grade I listed Paddington station and the Bayswater conservation area. The Cube’s backers say the development would provide 360,000 sq ft of office space, 75,000 sq ft of restaurants and shops and 1.25 hectares of public space.

They would fund a £65 million rebuild of Paddington’s Bakerloo line entrance and concourse — work that is also on hold while the Cube remains before the courts.

The Cube developers declined to comment but are understood to be confident that “we are almost there”. However construction may have to wait until Paddington’s Crossrail station is completed later this year.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said it would not comment while legal proceedings were ongoing.