Why is Kennedy Wilson picking a fight with its tenants? The US development giant has imposed parking charges at one of its landmark shopping centre sites – arbitrarily and without consultation, its tenants allege.

Stillorgan Shopping Centre – the first to be opened in the State back in 1966 and still very popular with local residents – has about 50 units and advertises footfall of about 100,000 a week.

In November, as retailers were gearing up for the busy Christmas shopping season, Kennedy Wilson introduced parking fees of €1.20 an hour at the centre and in its associated overflow car park – with threats of clamping or car removal. No grace period was built in to accommodate people using the shops for only a short period, nor for staff.

Tenants allege that the charges have dramatically cut footfall at the centre and electronic notices indicate there are plenty of spaces available in a car park that used to be generally full throughout most of the day.

Retailers have now responded with a rent strike, generally withholding a portion of rent matching their fall in business turnover.

They say business has fallen by as much as 20 per cent in some cases at a time when business costs are rising sharply, with higher wage bills and new pension charges. Some say they have cut back on staffing as a result.

But why, when rival local shopping centres are offering free parking, has Kennedy Wilson decided to antagonise its tenants and customers at the centre?

Could it be that the US-based developer has one eye on the development potential of the shopping centre’s overflow car-park, a half-hectare site with extensive street frontage.

Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s local area plan holds out the possibility of a redevelopment of the site for mixed residential and retail/commercial use featuring buildings of up to four storeys. The area has seen significant redevelopment in recent times.

Parking around suburban retail centres is always a contentious issue. If Kennedy Wilson could produce data showing that the main shopping centre car park would suffice, with the charges deterring others, it would certainly help its cause in any redevelopment plan.

Or is that all just attributing motives that are too Machiavellian to the centre’s landlord?