I moved to Princes a couple of years ago and have noticed that there appears to be quite a few house number missing in the row of houses that back onto the allotments between Bickerton Ave and Conville Boulevard. It is past where the new road Kingsbrook was built so cant be to do with that. Does anyone know if Princes was bombed and houses lost as I suspect?

Thanks

Don,t think that is the answer. It could be easily checked though by consulting
book by Ian Boumphey . Wirral at War i think title is and it lists ALL the properties
destroyed by bombing .
It is a fascinating area to live with the stream and ditch forming the boundary
between Birkenhead and Bebington . Some people call it the River Withert.
The Cokers have the postcode of CH42 with the Boulevards all being Ch62 or 63.
Boundary between Parliamentary Constituencies also and of Local Govnmt Wards.

I am guessing it is something to do with housing density, below Bickerton they are all semis, then across the road from Bickerton upwards they are detached. Perhaps they started building from both ends and replanned after they had started. The detached houses seem to have quite a variable plot width, whereas the semis are all identical

There are no records in Birkenhead at War (which does cover at least some of Bebington eg Town Lane) of any Bombs on Princess Boulevard.

This is the explanation i was given years ago after enquiring about 3 houses i use to frequent regular for working purposes. There numbers are 29, 33, 37. Just so happens a Barrister lived in one and it was his information. Whether it is correct for all missing numbers, i don't know or just his road. The plots of land are given numbers, in their case, plot 29 and 31 had one house built on them, also 33/35 and 37/39. The property that is built always takes the lowest number for house recognition. Going on that, if a number is missing the plot has not been used. Also i remember asking, because he had a lot of land, if he built a house in between 29 and 33 would it be 31, if my memory serves me right i think he said no, because 31plot had already been used, this is were my memory gets sketchy, it would have to be 29A or 31A, can't remember which.

Thank you everyone who has replied, all the answers are very interesting and do give an insight into why the numbers are so strange. The houses concerned are indeed on much wider plots, so I guess that the Barrister may be right in this case also!
Thanks again