Loans made to property companies – including three controlled by Manchester City’s Abu Dhabi owner – while Andy Burnham was Greater Manchester mayor are being investigated by councillors.

About 50 developers have been lent more than £1bn between them from a fund managed by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) since 2015.

John Leech, the chairman of the GMCA’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, told the BBC concerns had been raised about the transparency of the process to approve the loans.

“We just want to be clear that there is a transparent rather than an opaque process,” said Leech, who is the Liberal Democrat opposition leader on Manchester City Council.

He said the approval process had been criticised as “very opaque in the past and that it’s not necessarily been clearly understood why X was successful and Y wasn’t”.

A GMCA spokesperson said it was supporting the committee with its enquiries.

Downing Street did not comment.

The money came from the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loan Fund (GMHILF).

The fund was set up in 2015 with an initial £300m of government investment to help developers build new homes across Greater Manchester.

Three property companies ultimately controlled by Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan were granted loans worth about £55m in total.

The decisions to approve these loans were taken in 2017, in two meetings which were both chaired by Andy Burnham when he was mayor of Greater Manchester.

The decisions to grant loans from the fund were taken publicly by all members of the GMCA, not the mayor alone.

One of Manchester’s leading property developers, Renaker, has received the majority of the £1bn lent out from the fund.

Renaker has been involved in a long-running legal battle over £140m worth of loans made to the developer through the GMCA’s fund.

A rival developer, Aubrey Weis, claims the the loans were unfair subsidies.

In June, the Court of Appeal found there had been “no error of law” in the GMCA’s decision to provide the loans but Weis is appealing the decision.

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee, which reviews the activities of the mayor and the GMCA, agreed to launch an inquiry into the loans earlier this year and Leech is now taking that work forward, after being elected chairman recently.

Leech, a former Lib Dem MP in Manchester, said he felt the fund was intended to be for property companies struggling to access financing.

In 2015, when the loan scheme was launched, Bill Enevoldson, the GMCA’s chief investment officer, said, external: “It is not designed to finance unviable projects but can unlock currently unfundable ones.”

An evaluation of the fund, external from 2025 said it was designed to provide loans for “projects which might otherwise struggle to secure financing”.

Leech said it was “not unreasonable” to ask why seemingly successful businesses needed to borrow public money through this loan scheme.

“In the case of Abu Dhabi, you would imagine that they wouldn’t have any problem accessing funds from elsewhere as well,” Leech said.

“And so the process clearly does seem to be out of kilter with what the original stated aims were back in 2015.”

Leech said the committee had asked GMCA officers to produce a report about the use of these funds.

He said the committee will ask officers questions about the fund at a private meeting, before potentially making recommendations to the Greater Manchester mayor.

The committee does not have the power to sanction the mayor but it can investigate, require answers, expose problems and challenge decisions.

The committee could call forward witnesses, such as current Greater Manchester Mayor Bev Craig, to give evidence as part of the inquiry.

Conservative shadow sports minister Louie French said Burnham had “serious questions to answer” about the loans.

French said “taxpayers deserve transparency over how this money was awarded”.

In a statement, the GMCA said the funding for the loans had been lent “at commercial rates” and had delivered “11,000 new homes and regenerating brownfield land across the city region”.

The GMCA said “not a single viable scheme was ever turned down”.

A GMCA spokesperson added: “The fund is open to all developers, with lending criteria based on parameters set by the government and developed with external financial experts to reflect due diligence standards in the private sector.

“Every penny loaned from the fund is being fully repaid, delivering billions of pounds worth of development at no cost to the taxpayer.”

In 2014, Manchester City Council and Abu Dhabi United Group, which owns Manchester City FC, formed a joint venture called Manchester Life.

Abu Dhabi United Group and Manchester Life were involved in three property developments that were partially financed through the GMCA’s loan fund.

A Manchester Life spokesperson said: “It is standard for property development to be funded through a combination of investor equity and borrowing.

“All three sites had previously been derelict. The loans were provided on commercial terms and have been repaid in full, including interest.”

The BBC asked Renaker for comment but it did not respond before publication.

Julia Hatmaker, the editor of the Place North West property news website, said viability was “always a struggle” in the development world.

She said the GMCA’s loan scheme had been successful in building more homes in the city and generating a return on that investment.

But she said it’s a “good time for the combined authority to re-evaluate what kind of project it wants to support with similar loan programmes and whether it wants to put stricter rules in place as to what developments can benefit from them”.

Loans Granted While Burnham Was Mayor Investigated by Councillors as Questions Grow Over Transparency

A major investigation has been launched into housing loans approved during Andy Burnham’s time as mayor of Greater Manchester, raising questions about how public money was allocated and whether the process followed the original objectives of the scheme.

The inquiry centres on approximately £55 million in loans awarded in 2017 to three property companies ultimately controlled by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Abu Dhabi royal and owner of Manchester City Football Club. The loans came from the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loan Fund, which was established to help finance housing developments and unlock projects that might otherwise struggle to obtain funding.

The issue has attracted renewed attention because the decisions were taken at meetings chaired by Burnham, who was mayor at the time and is now prime minister. However, the loan approvals were made collectively by members of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), rather than by Burnham acting alone. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search2″,”turn816069search3”]}/>

The investigation is being pursued by the GMCA’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which examines the authority’s decisions and operations. Its chairman, John Leech, has raised concerns about the transparency of the lending process and whether the fund was being used in accordance with its original purpose.

The inquiry does not establish that wrongdoing occurred. Instead, it seeks to clarify how the loans were approved, why the recipients qualified and whether the process was sufficiently transparent.

Nevertheless, the case has become politically sensitive because it involves public investment, a prominent football club owner and a prime minister whose previous role in Greater Manchester is now receiving renewed scrutiny.

Why the Housing Loans Are Under Investigation

The Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loan Fund was established in 2015 with an initial £300 million in government investment. Its purpose was to encourage housebuilding by providing finance for developments that might otherwise struggle to secure funding through conventional commercial channels.

Since its establishment, the fund has lent more than £1 billion to approximately 50 property developers, according to reports about the scheme. Three companies ultimately controlled by Sheikh Mansour received loans totalling around £55 million in 2017. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search2″,”turn816069search3”]}/>

The central question is whether those companies met the criteria intended for the fund.

The original rationale was to help unlock housing developments that could not easily proceed without financial assistance. Such schemes can play an important role in areas where land is expensive, construction costs are high or private lenders are unwilling to provide all the necessary capital.

However, critics have questioned whether companies connected to a wealthy international investor should have been able to access public-backed loans designed to address financing difficulties.

John Leech has argued that the approval process was not sufficiently transparent and that it was not always clear why some applicants succeeded while others did not. He has called for a clearer explanation of how lending decisions were reached and whether the original criteria were consistently applied. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search1″,”turn816069search3”]}/>

The issue is therefore broader than the identity of the companies that received the money. It concerns the principles governing public investment: who qualifies, how applications are assessed and what information should be available to taxpayers.

If public-backed lending is intended to support developments that private finance cannot adequately fund, the authority must be able to explain why individual projects meet that standard.

Burnham’s Role in the Decisions

Burnham was mayor of Greater Manchester when the loans were approved in 2017. The decisions were taken at two meetings chaired by him, bringing his previous responsibilities into the current debate.

That fact does not mean that he personally approved the loans or that he alone determined which companies received funding. Reports indicate that the GMCA members made the decisions collectively. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search2″,”turn816069search3”]}/>

Nevertheless, the mayor’s role in chairing the meetings makes it reasonable for investigators and the public to seek a detailed account of how the decisions were considered.

Questions include what information was presented to the authority, how the lending criteria were applied and whether members were given sufficient detail to assess the financial risks and expected public benefits.

Transparency is particularly important when public authorities work with large private investors. Even when a decision is lawful and financially sound, an unclear process can create suspicion that some applicants received preferential treatment.

For Burnham, the political challenge is to ensure that the record of the decisions is fully understood. He has built much of his public reputation around regional economic development, housing and the use of devolved powers to stimulate investment. The scrutiny of the loan fund therefore touches on the way that model of regional government operates in practice.

It is important, however, to distinguish between questions about governance and allegations of misconduct. The existence of an inquiry does not prove that Burnham acted improperly, nor does it establish that the loans should never have been awarded.

The investigation must examine the evidence before reaching conclusions.

The Manchester Life Development

The loans were associated with developments connected to Manchester Life, a housing venture formed by Manchester City Council and Abu Dhabi United Group in 2014. The project was intended to contribute to the regeneration of parts of Manchester and the creation of new homes.

The developments were part of a wider effort to transform previously underused land and attract investment into the city. Manchester’s expansion has involved cooperation between local government, private developers and international investors, with housing construction playing a prominent role in the regeneration of the urban centre.

Supporters of this model argue that major development projects can create homes, improve neglected sites and support jobs in construction and related industries. They also point out that public-backed lending can help projects proceed when commercial financing is difficult to obtain on acceptable terms.

But the arrangement raises an important question: how should authorities balance the desire to attract investment against the need to ensure that public support is targeted appropriately?

A wealthy investor may bring substantial capital and expertise to a project, but that does not automatically mean the investor requires a publicly backed loan. Conversely, the wealth of a company’s ultimate owner does not, by itself, prove that a particular development could have secured private finance on equivalent terms.

The relevant issue is the financial position and viability of the projects when the loans were approved, together with the criteria governing the fund.

Investigators will need to establish whether the loans addressed a genuine financing gap and whether the authority obtained an appropriate return for the risks it accepted.

Were the Loans Fair to Other Developers?

One of the concerns raised by critics is whether the lending arrangements created an uneven playing field for property developers.

Manchester has experienced a substantial building boom, with large companies competing to develop residential towers, apartments and regeneration sites. Access to financing can determine which projects proceed, how quickly construction begins and whether a developer can compete for land.

If one company receives favourable financing from a publicly backed fund, rival businesses may question whether they were given the same opportunity.

Aubrey Weis, a rival property developer, has challenged loans provided through the GMCA scheme, arguing that the arrangements amounted to unfair subsidies. The dispute has already involved court proceedings. In June 2026, the Court of Appeal found no error of law in the GMCA’s decision to provide the loans, although the rival developer has continued to pursue an appeal. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search1″,”turn816069search3”]}/>

That legal development is important because it demonstrates that the controversy is not starting from a blank slate. The fund’s decisions have already faced legal scrutiny, and the court’s finding must be taken into account.

At the same time, a legal ruling on whether a decision contained an error of law does not necessarily answer every question about policy, transparency or whether lending criteria should be revised in future.

The current scrutiny process can examine broader governance issues, including whether the authority communicated its decisions clearly and whether its procedures were sufficiently robust.

Such questions matter even when decisions withstand legal challenges. Public institutions must not only operate within the law but also maintain procedures that taxpayers can understand and trust.

The GMCA Defends the Fund

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has defended the lending scheme, arguing that it has helped deliver housing and regeneration without imposing a net cost on taxpayers.

According to the authority, the fund has supported around 50 developers and contributed to the creation of approximately 11,000 homes. It has also said that loans were made at commercial rates and that the money is being repaid in full. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search1″,”turn816069search3”]}/>

Manchester Life has likewise said that the loans were provided on commercial terms and have been repaid in full, including interest. The company has described borrowing as a standard part of property development, in which investor equity and external finance are often combined.

These statements are relevant to the investigation. If the loans have been repaid with interest and the developments have delivered the intended housing, that would be an important part of the fund’s performance record.

However, repayment alone does not resolve every concern about how the loans were awarded. Investigators may still need to establish whether the projects met the eligibility criteria, whether comparable applicants were treated consistently and whether the authority received sufficient value for the financial risks it assumed.

The distinction is between the financial outcome of a loan and the process used to decide who should receive it. Both matter when public money is involved.

The authority has said it is cooperating with the committee’s enquiries. The review could help establish whether the fund’s procedures require clarification or whether stronger safeguards should be introduced for future lending programmes.

Political Pressure and Public Accountability

The investigation has also attracted attention because Burnham is now prime minister. Decisions taken during his mayoral tenure are being examined at a time when his approach to regional investment and public administration has national significance.

Conservative politicians have called for answers about the loans, arguing that taxpayers deserve transparency over the allocation of public-backed finance. The prime minister’s former role in the decisions has also prompted questions about his meetings with Manchester City officials. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search3″,”turn816069news7”]}/>

Those meetings have become part of the wider debate over the relationship between Manchester’s political leadership, the football club and the investors involved in the city’s development.

The existence of contact between public officials and business leaders is not, in itself, evidence of improper conduct. Mayors and other elected representatives regularly meet investors to discuss economic development, employment and regeneration.

The relevant questions are whether those interactions were appropriately recorded, whether the lending decisions followed established procedures and whether any potential conflicts of interest were properly managed.

A transparent record can help distinguish ordinary engagement with investors from situations that require further explanation. That is why the scrutiny process is significant: it offers a mechanism for examining the evidence rather than relying solely on political accusations.

The committee can question officials, examine the decision-making process and make recommendations. However, it does not have the power to sanction the mayor simply through its inquiry. <Cite refs={[“turn816069search1″,”turn816069search3”]}/>

What Could the Investigation Change?

The inquiry could have consequences beyond the specific loans associated with Manchester Life.

If investigators conclude that the lending criteria were unclear or insufficiently communicated, the GMCA could be encouraged to publish more detailed explanations of future decisions. It might also consider clearer eligibility tests, more comprehensive reporting on interest rates and stronger documentation of why particular projects require public-backed finance.

Another issue is whether public authorities should distinguish more explicitly between projects that genuinely struggle to secure funding and developments undertaken by businesses with access to substantial private capital.

Any revised system would need to avoid making assumptions about applicants based solely on their ownership. Instead, decisions should be based on consistent financial assessments, the viability of the project and the expected public benefit.

The authority may also need to consider how much information can be released without compromising commercially sensitive negotiations. Transparency does not necessarily require publishing every detail of a private financing arrangement, but it should provide enough information for the public to understand the purpose of the fund and the basis of major decisions.

The ultimate objective should be a system that supports housing construction while maintaining confidence that public-backed finance is allocated fairly.

A Test for Regional Government

The investigation highlights a wider challenge for regional authorities across Britain. Devolution gives local leaders greater freedom to design economic policies and direct investment towards local priorities. Yet with that freedom comes a responsibility to demonstrate that public resources are used transparently and effectively.

Housing funds can help unlock regeneration, but they also expose public authorities to financial and reputational risks. If the process is poorly understood, even projects that deliver homes and repay their loans can become the subject of prolonged controversy.

Burnham’s time as mayor is now being examined through that wider question of accountability. The inquiry will need to establish what happened, how the relevant decisions were reached and whether the fund operated according to its intended purpose.

For now, the evidence does not justify treating the investigation as proof of wrongdoing. The loans were approved collectively, the GMCA has defended the scheme and Manchester Life has said the loans were repaid in full.

The central issue is whether the authority can demonstrate that the lending process was fair, transparent and consistent with the fund’s objectives.

The findings will matter not only for the companies involved but also for the future of regional investment programmes. If the process is shown to have been sound, the inquiry could help clarify how the fund operated and why the loans were justified. If weaknesses are identified, stronger safeguards could improve confidence in future decisions.

Ultimately, public investment depends on more than delivering new homes or generating financial returns. It also depends on the public being able to understand why decisions were made and to trust that the same rules apply to everyone.

That is the question councillors are now seeking to answer as they investigate the loans granted during Burnham’s time as mayor.