Time Out Markets will continue to pursue the opening of food hall in Spitalfields after its appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

Time Out Markets chief executive Didier Souillat told MCA the group would return with an amended plan for a proposed opening in H2 2020.

The Planning Inspectorate rejected Time Out’s appeal on the grounds that its proposal would have a negative impact on the heritage of the area, by removing a slate roof in order to soundproof the building, on Commercial Street.

The accessibility of a toilet on the second floor of the building was also cited as a reason for the dismissal.

Souillat told MCA Time Out Market would provide “enjoyment, employment and economic boost” to Spitalfields, adding: “That’s why we will continue to pursue planning consent with the Landlord’s backing, incorporating the Planning Inspectorate’s required changes to the original plan. When successful, opening would occur earliest in H2 2020. We continue to have strong support in the local community and from amazing London chefs who would love to see Time Out Market brought to life in the capital.”

The group is also exploring other possible sites in London, with five new Time Out Markets opening in 2019, in Miami, New York, Boston, Chicago and Montreal.

Earlier this year Planning inspector Cullum J A Parker said Time Out’s proposal to alter the roofing would have a “negative impact on the significant of the conservation area as a heritage asset”.

Parker said he saw was no reason concerns over alcohol consumption and disorder could not be overcome through licensing.

In his conclusions, he wrote: “The harm to the heritage asset, mainly through the removal of the slate roof, has not been justified as the only way in which the sound insulation could be achieved to attain other planning aims. What is more, it is highly likely that were the slate roof removed it would not be replaced to a more historic form in the future resulting in the permanent loss of the contribution the slate roof makes to the character and appearance of the CA [conservation area].

“Other significant adverse impacts include that which would arise from the location of the accessible toilet on the second floor to persons with Protected Characteristics under the PSED [Public Sector Equality Duty].

“I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the adopted development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it.”