Mr G Seller wanted permission to build up to 50 homes at the site of the store – which is still open and has not announced plans to close.

But council planning officers refused to grant planning permission in November last year. They argued it would mean an ‘irreversible’ loss of space for jobs.

They also said new residents wouldn’t get enough daylight, that there would not be enough car parking, and that it included no plans to provide affordable housing.

READ MORE: Slough parking permits: which streets are next in line?

Now government planning inspector Siobhan Watson has upheld the council’s decision after Mr Seller appealed against it.

The inspector found that adding 50 new flats would make parking problems in the area worse. She said that when she visited the industrial estate on Bath Road, she found that several cars were ‘parked illegally on double yellow lines’.

She said: “Many cars were parked half on pavements blocking footways. In particular, the service road to the site was full of parked cars which were parked half on the pavement and half on the carriageway.”

She added: “There is already a very significant parking problem in the vicinity. The shortfall in the number of proposed car parking spaces is very substantial and I do not consider that the mitigations proposed would be effective.

“Therefore, there is a serious risk that the proposed development would exacerbate the existing parking problems.”

The inspector’s report also says Mr Seller argued that American Golf might leave the building because it is in a ‘tricky economic position’. However Watson said there is ‘no substantive evidence’ that American Golf plans to leave.

Watson also found that even if American Golf did leave, another business would be able to move in and continue providing employment in Slough.

READ MORE: Horlicks Quarter residents say they’re left with nowhere to park

Watson said: “Even though the current number of staff is small, the site still contributes to employment within the area. There is no evidence that a potential future occupier could not employ more staff.”

She said that would mean replacing the building with flats would be ‘an unacceptable loss of employment land’.

Watson also found that, under the plans submitted by Mr Seller, entire flats in the development would not get enough daylight. She said this would mean the development ‘would provide unacceptable living conditions for many of its future occupants’.

Mr Seller’s appeal was rejected on Friday, October 11.