Marina plans in doubt after backer pulls out
Associated British Ports (ABP) said it could no longer provide the "significant investment" required to build a marina on the waterfront in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan.
The marina formed part of redevelopment plans which also include a new watersports centre, park, housing and offices.
Vale of Glamorgan Council said it was "extremely disappointed" by the decision but that it remained confident the rest of the project could go ahead.
Derelict Victorian hotel on most endangered list
Town's waterfront plans approved
The project to develop the waterfront, known as Barry Making Waves, formed the basis of an application for £20m of levelling-up funding under the previous Conservative UK government.
Following a spending review, in October 2024 Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed Barry would receive its funding.
A spokesperson for ABP said following its own review, it had come to the "regretful conclusion" that it can no longer "proceed with the significant investment required in a marina".
"We are looking at the right, viable ways we can contribute to the project and council's goals," they said, adding the company wanted to contribute to "more growth and prosperity for Barry".
Council leader Lis Burnett described the decision as a "clear setback" but said she was confident the project would still go ahead.
"We believe the project can be delivered without the marina component, subject to UK government agreement," the Local Democracy Reporting Service reports.
Andrew RT Davies, Conservative Member of the Senedd (MS) for South Wales Central, described the decision as "extremely concerning".
"The marina is a key part of plans to level up Barry and losing this investment is a huge blow," he said, adding that action was required to attract new partners.
Mark Hooper, a Plaid Cymru councillor for the Barry waterfront area, said he was "surprised" by the announcement, and that the market testing "should have been completed long ago".
"We in Barry need answers. Why was so much time and energy sunk into these plans if business partners hadn't already carried out their due diligence?"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Labour Has 'Disappointed' People While In Government, Reeves Admits
Save Rachel Reeves admits Labour has "disappointed" people while in government. The politician said she understood that being Chancellor meant making unpopular decisions.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
What you need to know about the car finance scandal
A scandal over how consumers have been sold car loans has unfolded in recent months. A crucial Supreme Court ruling issued on Friday, however, overturned a court of appeal finding that hidden commissions paid to car dealers by lenders were unlawful. The ruling means that lenders have potentially avoided paying compensation to millions of drivers, although they will likely still have to pay some customers. Analysts previously said the scandal could cost lenders from £30bn to £44bn. The UK's chancellor Rachel Reeves had attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case on the matter, though judges rejected this application. When issuing its full-year results in February, Lloyds Banking Group (LLOY.L) said it had put a further £700m aside for potential motor finance commission remediation costs. Read more: The 'cheapest' stocks on FTSE 100 as UK blue-chip index trades at record high The saga has weighed heavily on the stocks of the most exposed players, which includes Lloyds and fellow British lender Close Brothers (CBG.L). Earlier this month, Lloyds unveiled a higher-than-expected profit for the first half of 2025, as it benefited from a jump in lending and savings balances. Now that the Supreme Court has given its verdict, it's unclear how much lenders are still on the hook for in terms of compensation. Here's more detail on what you need to know about the scandal. How did it come about? The City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), started looking into commissions in the motor finance industry in 2017. The FCA then launched a consultation on the use of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) in 2019. DCAs were a type of commission model received by some car retailers and motor finance brokers, which was linked to the interest rate that customers pay. This meant that the broker could effectively set the interest rate and the FCA said this created an incentive to sell more expensive credit to some customers, acting against their interests. As a result, the FCA banned DCAs in 2021, a move which it said would save customers £165m a year. In January 2024, the FCA then launched a review of historical motor finance DCAs, to understand if there was any misconduct related to this type of commission before the 2021 ban. In addition, the review has also sought to understand if consumers have lost out and if so, what the best way would be to ensure they receive appropriate compensation. However, a Court of Appeal ruling in October broadened the scope of the issue to any car finance commissions. The court found it illegal for dealerships to receive commissions on car finance deals without securing 'fully informed consent' from buyers. It is feared that the landmark ruling has paved the way for a multi-billion-pound redress scheme. Read more: Europe's most expensive city revealed, as living costs near £3,500 per month Following the ruling, the FCA said in December that it was extending the time firms have to respond to complaints not involving DCAs, with a new deadline of 4 December 2025. The FCA's general counsel Stephen Braviner-Roman told MPs in a Treasury committee hearing in December that the regulator had previously said that "looking at DCAs alone we do not think it is at the scale of PPI." "That was when we were looking at DCAs alone, so it would be premature to say it is definitely not at the scale of PPI now," he said. In December, the Supreme Court granted Close Brothers (CBG.L) and South African financial services firm FirstRand ( permission to appeal the October ruling. The Financial Times reported in January that the Treasury had submitted an application to intervene in the case, saying in a letter that it had the "potential to cause considerable economic harm and could impact the availability and cost of motor finance for consumers." However, the Supreme Court said it had refused the Treasury's application to intervene. The appeals of cases involving Close Brothers (CBG.L) and FirstRand ( are listing for hearings on 1-3 April. The FCA plans to set out the next steps in its review into DCAs in May, as well as potentially providing an update on non-DCA complaints, but had already warned lenders to keep some money aside to potentially resolve complaints. Lenders set aside costs Providers that could be impacted by the launch of compensation scheme have already started to set funds aside. Close Brothers has said it was setting aside up to £165m in the first half of its financial year in relation to potential motor commissions costs. "There remains significant uncertainty as to the range of outcomes from the motor commissions appeals and the FCA's ongoing review of motor commissions and, therefore, the ultimate cost to the group could be materially higher or lower than the estimated provision," Close Brothers said. Read more: Did the Genius Act just kill the UK's crypto dreams? Defence companies post strong results as UK investors back the sector over AI The most affordable market towns for first-time buyersError in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
The £44bn car finance ruling that threatens calamity for Reeves
Follow the latest on the Supreme Court car finance ruling Most Friday afternoons in the City of London are spent tying up loose ends, sending last minute emails and – if you're lucky – grabbing a swift drink before the weekend kicks in. But not this week. That's because this Friday, Britain's highest court will hand down a judgment with profound implications for banks in the Square Mile – as well as Rachel Reeves's push to shake Britain out of its anti-growth torpor. Judges at the Supreme Court are effectively set to decide if millions of car finance agreements dating back more than a decade were mis-sold to customers. The judgment could not only unleash a PPI-style compensation scheme worth billions, but also create a fresh headache for Reeves, who fears a ruling against the banks would reflect badly on Britain as a place to do business. 'An enormous redress scheme could negatively impact the reputation of our financial services industry, damage UK plc's investability and stifle growth,' says Mike Walters, a former compliance chief for Barclays who now advises banks at FTI Consulting. 'There's a lot to play for.' The ruling will decide whether it was lawful for banks to pay 'secret' commissions to car dealers who promoted loans to help people buy a car. Specifically, judges must decide whether car buyers in two cases – Close Brothers vs Hopcraft and FirstRand Bank vs Wrench –were treated unfairly by not having commission payments between the lenders and dealers disclosed to them. It threatens to spark a wave of compensation claims worth an estimated £44bn that could shake the City to its core. In a sign of the possible impacts on the banks, the Supreme Court has made the highly unusual decision to publish its verdict after stock markets close, at 4.35pm, to protect share prices. The magnitude of the ruling had already led to interventions from the very top of Government, with speculation Reeves could simply overrule the judges by changing the law if they arrive at a decision that is bad for the Square Mile. The Chancellor's concerns are also mirrored in the City, where bosses have warned that a ruling against the banks risks deterring investors from putting their money into UK companies. While the case revolves around car loans, the decision could have larger ramifications for all kinds of credit brokered by middle men. A broader interpretation of the law could see the Supreme Court rule against secret commission payments more generally, in a move that would expose banks to significantly higher costs. Such a ruling could expose lenders to a wave of claims from consumers who bought products ranging from laptops to washing machines – anything purchased on credit. 'It isn't just the auto industry that's looking at this judgment,' says Kevin Ingram, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance. Even if it takes a more narrow interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court could still rule that only the secret commissions paid to car dealers were unlawful. Ingram says costs for banks could vary significantly depending on the scope of the ruling and the setup of the compensation claims process. 'It's not a binary decision,' he says. Broader pain Friday's judgment also has huge political significance. Reeves has already voiced concerns that the Supreme Court's ruling could go too far. Addressing a roomful of bankers at Davos earlier this year, the Chancellor said: 'We've got to get the balance right, and sometimes the balance has not been right in recent years ... having a vibrant car industry and motor finance industry in the UK is important. 'There is nothing pro-consumer about making it harder for people to buy an affordable car for their family. That would be bad for working families.' The Chancellor also attempted to intervene in the case, though this was blocked by the Supreme Court itself. Reeves's concerns could be well-founded. 'If big banks pull away from the market, that's not going to be cost-free,' Walters says, warning that the Supreme Court's ruling could ultimately result in higher costs for borrowers. Higher legal and compliance costs on the back of the case are likely to also push up the price of loans, as lenders seek to avoid a repeat of the current situation. Hyder Jumabhoy, a partner at law firm White & Case, believes that the ruling could prompt banks to step away from vehicle finance and force car manufacturers to step in instead. 'The car manufacturers are watching the market very carefully. If there's a lack of financing in the market, they're going to be worried about whether there's buyers for their cars ... A lot of the large vehicle manufacturers actually have the balance sheet to support this,' Jumabhoy says. And what of the banks themselves? The upcoming ruling threatens to deliver a serious financial hit that has already weighed significantly on their share prices. Some of Britain's biggest banks are in the firing line, including Lloyds, Barclays and Santander, who all extended millions of pounds worth of motor finance loans to car buyers. Meanwhile, Jumabhoy says that smaller motor finance providers 'could really struggle' from an adverse decision. Lloyds has set aside the most of any bank so far, provisioning £1.2bn to cover the costs of compensation. Santander has earmarked £295m and Barclays has set aside £90m. Close Brothers, a smaller specialist lender deeply embedded in the market, has provisioned £165m and Investec has set aside £30m. 'Any redress scheme that does result from the Supreme Court's decision will be quite absorbable for the largest banks because of their significant profitability and capital buffers, so that's the likes of Lloyds, Barclays and Santander,' Huseyin Sevinc, from Fitch Ratings, says. 'But some small and medium-sized motor finance lenders are slightly more vulnerable, given that for some of them, the motor finance business has been a much larger part of their business.' Car finance loans account for around 20pc of Close Brothers' entire loan book, compared to just 2pc to 3pc for much bigger banks like Lloyds and Santander. Jumabhoy says an adverse ruling could leave smaller lenders vulnerable to potential takeover and may 'hasten the flurry of M&A activity' in the UK's financial industry, as the winners use their clout to snap up any losers. Whatever the court rules, it is likely to have a major impact – not least for Reeves's push to boost the City. 'There's obviously a big concern about the investability of the UK economy but it's going to be interesting to see how concerns play out on the other side of the coin.' says Walters. 'If people have been ripped off, it's only right that they're compensated.' A HMT spokesman said: 'We want to see a balanced judgment that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own vehicles. It is now appropriate to let the appeals process run its course.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
