ARCHITECTS behind a controversial scheme to replace a 19th-century pub building with modern-looking flats say people were “wrong” to call their designs ugly.

Andrew Boughton, of Boughton Butler, has defended his firm’s plans for a block of flats in place of the former Little Sauce Factory building on London Road, now home to Pete’s Indian Restaurant.

Mr Boughton suggested people “did not understand” the concept behind the flats and insisted that he would not be revising the scheme.

Last week, Worcester City Council’s planning committee voted against the application, with several councillors attacking the design of the flats. Members’ comments – one said the scheme was “hideously ugly” – followed criticism from council officers and readers of your Worcester News when the plans were unveiled.

The planning committee deferred a final decision until next month in the hope the firm might alter the designs – but Mr Boughton told your Worcester News he would not do so.

He said: “The committee members are entitled to their opinion. Members of the public are entitled to their opinion.

“But design is so subjective, and people don’t understand what design is – they are often talking about appearance or style.

“Somebody says ‘I don’t like the look of that’. If you proceed on that basis, you end up with mediocrity.”

Mr Boughton said that rather than change his plans, he would ask planners to visit the site before next month’s meeting with new pictures of his designs.

He is asking the committee to decide between the two designs pictured.

Pointing out that part of the site, the part that “frames” the Cathedral, has already been approved for redevelopment, he said committee members had not fully understood the plans before them.

He said: “They’re entitled to turn it down, but we will say, ‘You are wrong. You don’t understand what you’re looking at.’ “I’m not saying you can’t say it’s ugly. I’m saying you can say it’s ugly, but you’re wrong.”

Mr Boughton said that if the application is refused, his firm will probably appeal the decision and lodge a fresh application.

In the meantime, he said, he would seek the comments of the Government’s advisory body on architecture, CABE (the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment).

He said: “If CABE thinks it’s a good design, we’ve a very good case to appeal.”

The architect also described the council’s planning department as “not as professional as it could be”, suggesting officers had passed comment on his designs who were not qualified to do so.

He said: “We are aware that officers who do not have the qualification or position to comment on design are doing so, and seeking to apply their weight inappropriately.”

The planning committee is set to discuss the proposal on Thursday, July 16.