Adrian Stott wrote: > > Most of BW's property that is held for income is let on long-term > (typically 25 year) commercial leases. Such leases do normally have > periodic rent reviews, but these are usually specified as being > "upward-only" so the rent can never fall. This means that BW's > property income has probably reduced very little in the last year or > two, and isn't likely to. >
How is it then that it dropped from £63.2 million in 2005/6 to £59.56 million in 2006/7? It was a good job that in the same year income from all non-property categories went up (except, of course, from Govt!) Cheers Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
