McDonald's WILL be built on the M53 despite hundreds saying it'll put children in danger

The new restaurant and drive-thru will be based just off junction three of the motorway after Wirral Council’s planners gave the green light at their meeting on Thursday evening.

It’s despite opposition to the Prenton Way plans from two ward councillors and more than 300 nearby residents.

At the Wallasey Town Hall meeting, two councillors and a petitioner, Andy Bennett, spoke against the proposals for the North Cheshire Trading Estate.

Ward member for Prenton Cllr Tony Norbury said: “This is a two-storey restaurant on a motorway, it may as well be a service station. They’re going to get all sorts of traffic coming off the motorway to use this restaurant, on a very, very narrow piece of road.

“The new pelican crossing will create a backlog of traffic going back onto [the motorway]. It’s a very dangerous situation.

“We are [meant to be] moving towards protecting the environment. That means not just not building on the green belt, but protecting residents from pollution and developments like this.”

He also hit out at the fast food giant’s reputation for zero-hour contracts it offers many of its staff, which means no guarantee of work, usually organised with little notice, claiming it “drives staff to plight and homelessness”.

Fellow ward councillor Chris Cooke said: “Children from two local secondary schools are just minutes away from the new restaurant by bike, and will be put at risk by the plans.

“Wirral has a duty to protect them from this temptation before a tragic accident occurs.”

Where the new Mcdonald's is set to be opened in Prenton. (Picture: Google Maps)

The petition handed in by residents raised over 20 complaints, including an increase in litter, noise disturbance, congestion and potential danger to pedestrians due to more traffic.

That’s as well as “antisocial behaviour that McDonald’s has a tendency to attract”, specifying “boy racers and trouble making”, and attracting potential pests to an area “already suffering from problems with rats and seagulls”.

Mr Bennett said the application was of “deep concern”, not least how it will encourage local children to eat unhealthy food, adding: “This will have a negative and long-lasting impact on the NHS.”

Also speaking at the meeting was franchisee Paul Griffiths, who said the firm works “really hard” against litter problems, with staff carrying out regular ‘litter walks’ and clear-ups.In terms of antisocial behaviour, he said: “It’s absolutely imperative we are part of the community. It’s so important for our customers and neighbours, and really important to our business.”

He hopes the franchise, creating 65 jobs, will be in place for at least 20 years, adding: “That’s a long-term commitment, not here now and disappearing tomorrow. [We will offer a] safe, welcoming, responsible environment, and we take antisocial behaviour very seriously.

“We also work collaboratively with antisocial behaviour teams from the council and police as and when it does arise, to nip it in the bud very quickly.”

Despite reservations from ward councillors over whether enough work had been done to determine how much extra traffic the development will bring, Mr Griffiths said the concerns had been “addressed”.

He added: “We have worked closely with officers to provide all the information needed to complete recommendations.

“We have considered letters of objection, listened and taken into account concerns, and addressed these concerns in our final proposals.”

Concerns from committee members included the location of the facility, and that because there are “no service areas between Wirral and the M56”, it would attract lorries or HGVs coming off ferries from Dublin and Belfast.

It was also revealed at the meeting that a similar application for a McDonald’s on that same site was refused back in 2002, due to “highways concerns”. Council officers said the business had worked to ensure those same concerns did not arise again.

Cllr Brian Kenny said the application was “very difficult”, and that the objections stated at the meeting “don’t appear to be planning reasons”, which he did not think would “stand up” if it were to be refused and the case went to appeal.

A motion to refuse the plans, put forward by Cllr Pat Cleary on the basis the development was “undesirable and unsustainable”, was lost by eight votes to five, before it was voted through by eight votes to four.