CONTROVERSIAL plans to turn a defunct village pub into a family home have been thrown out over concerns it would result in the “loss of a community facility”.

Braintree Council has turned down proposals to transform the former Pinkuah Arms in Pentlow on the Essex-Suffolk border.

The historic pub, in Pinkuah Lane, was the only one in the village and was previously an asset of community value.

The once-popular venue has not operated since the end of the Covid-19 pandemic, during which it was open intermittently and as a hot food takeaway.

It finally ceased trading at the end of 2021.

An application from Bird and Sons was submitted in February and sought to change the property from a pub to a house.

Plans said the property would make a “small family home” of two or three bedrooms.

A private garden would be provided to the rear with parking and turning areas to the side and front.

The application said even when Covid-19 restrictions were lifted and the pub was open five days a week, including weekends, the Pinkuah Arms was making a loss “every day”.

It further added how the village “does not have enough supporting customers to break even” and described the pub as “not viable”.

It says the redevelopment would make help "support housing needs”.

The plans received plenty of objections from residents, and now have been refused by Braintree Council.

Planning bosses raised concerns over the site’s community value, harm to a “heritage asset” and road issues.

A refusal report reads: “The proposal would result in a loss of a community facility and service without an appropriate marketing exercise.

“The applicant fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the public house use is unviable and also fails to demonstrate that all other reasonable options for retaining the facility have been considered.”

It continues: “The proposed conversion would lead to a loss of its historic, social and communal values, resulting in harm to a non-designated heritage asset by dilution of its historic significance.

“It would also encroach onto highway land, obstructing the principal use of highway land as a right of free and safe passage for all highway users.”