In 1887 the plot of land on the corner of Sandfield Road and Gateacre Brow housed a smithy with dwelling-house above, plus a shop, yard, stable and wheelwright's shop. The property - originally dating from before 1820 - had been owned and occupied by James Blundell, blacksmith, since 1847. When he died in 1859, his widow Margaret became the owner, and from 1870 to 1889 the smithy was run by her sons Joseph and George. Two years after her death it was sold by the Blundell family, for the sum of £580, to George Hunter Robertson: on 27th October 1887. He promptly pulled it down, and commissioned a young architect - Walter Aubrey Thomas - to design new premises for the site.

From 1888-1890 no occupiers' names are shown in the Much Woolton Rates Book for the three small buildings, but in 1889 the owner is G.H. Robertson. No Rateable Value is shown, instead 'void - pulled down' is written. By 1891 there is a new 'house and shop' on the corner, with a Rateable Value assessed at £30 but no occupier listed. Another 'house and shop' next door (the one with the curved glass frontage) was occupied by James and Isaac Marsh, grocers - formerly of 10 Gateacre Brow - and had a Rateable Value of £34.

At that time George Hunter Robertson, born c.1837 was living at The Laurels (known to us as Gateacre Hall Hotel - the older Georgian part), in Halewood Road. He was a cotton broker and one of the people instrumental in setting up the first telephone exchange in Liverpool in 1879. About 1883 he had an exchange installed in Gateacre, in the chemists shop at 5 Gateacre Brow. By 1889 there were some 40 subscribers, and somewhere larger was required - so he had the new buildings opposite erected. The exchange was housed upstairs over the corner shop.

In the Much Woolton Local Board Minutes for 1889 we find that, on the 4th February, Walter Aubrey Thomas submitted plans and sections of two houses and shops, intended to be built for Mr Robertson. The Surveyor was instructed to return them for amendment, as they were not in accordance with the bye-laws as to setting back for a footway. On 28th February plans and sections from Mr Thomas were again submitted, and on the 4th March the Board received a letter from 'Mr Thomas, architect' objecting to the Committee not having yet approved the plans. It was, however, decided that the resolution of the Committee of the 4th February should be adhered to. There were two more letters from Mr Thomas - on the 21st March and the 25th March - and it was agreed that the matter be left in the hands of Mr Hill, Chairman of the Works Committee. As we hear no more, we presume that he got things sorted out.

Continued . . .