Westfield have found themselves with a publicity nightmare at their West Lakes shopping centre in South Australia.
It appears they have been getting a bit narked at the number of commuters parking all day in their shopping centre, as well as copping the overflow from the local football stadium. This is obviously impinging on shoppers parking, despite there being an enforced time limit in the carpark of 3 or 4 hours.
Seems they struck on the apparently reasonable solution of installing boom gates and ticket machines along with paid parking for those that overstay their welcome. In other words free parking for those who are utilising the carpark for what it was originally designed for, but a fee for those that wish to abuse this system and park for longer.
Unfortunately the local media has grabbed this, sponsored by a few of the shop keepers who seem hell bent on retarding their own businesses, and decided to bash Westfield for the idea.
Westfield has had to lodge development plans with the local City of Charles Sturt council prior to installation, and I believe it is the local council which is currently providing the enforcement in the carpark. If so, this smacks of a conflict of interest as they are benefactors of PIN fees under the current system and will most likely lose out on the change in arrangements. So how can they be relied upon to make a balanced decision?
This situation begs a another couple of questions. If the council is responsible for policing the carpark, yet Westfield is still feels its shoppers are disadvantaged, what discussions have taken place between them to improve the level of enforcement?
If the proposal is to go ahead, why are some tenants so against the idea when it will actually improve the parking for their customers? Read some tenants reactions here.
Seems that Westfield was short on precise information on the proposal prior to lodging the application, and now has a lot of selling to do to both its tenants and shoppers alike. Perhaps they should have done this first?
JP
Comments