LTS 27 February 2001. The ratepayers (B) contended that the premises they occupied on opposite sides of the road, one of which shared access with a third party, should form a single entry in the valuation roll as there was both a functional link and a telecommunications conduit under the road between the two units. The tribunal held that the premises had been correctly entered into the roll as two separate units as: the fact that the premises served one business did not indicate that they were a single physical unit; the buildings were physically separated by a public road and land to which B did not have exclusive access; there was no visual characteristic to the buildings that indicated that they were operated together or that either was essential to the function of the other; the buildings could be let separately, although no weight was given to the fact that historically this was the case; the evidence presented did not establish functional interdependence; links to remote sites such as the telecommunications conduit were common and not dependant on proximity; the presence of a canteen was not evidence of a functional connection.