Council officers have been asked to determine whether the former Debenhams building on Princes Street should be acquired via compulsory purchase order.
City of Edinburgh councillors backed a composite motion from the Liberal Democrats, Labour and Scottish Greens which outlined a number of provisions as part of a ‘Lessons Learned’ review into the July 9 fire and subsequent transport disruption.
One point focused on the potential compulsory purchase of 109-112 Princes Street in order to avoid the building becoming a gap site.
“It has been a really difficult time in the city centre,” Scottish Greens councillor Claire Miller said. “We are particularly pleased that officers are going to be able to evaluate [ways to ensure] the site will not remain empty,” she added.
The fire, the cause of which is unknown, took place on July 9. (Image: Jane Barlow)
“While a CPO might not be the decision in the end, we are open to all the options … so the city can move forward from the fire.”
The motion by the Scottish Greens states: “Given the fact that there are multiple owners of the site, and the likelihood of this prolonging any re-construction or redevelopment of the site, that officers will assess, with regard to relevant legislation, whether compulsory purchase of the building should be considered, and reports the outcome of this assessment to the relevant committee accordingly within three cycles.”
According to Land Register of Scotland deeds for the site, 110 Princes Street is owned by French firm Osmo Energie, while 109, 111, and 112 Princes Street are owned by Zedwell Edinburgh, a subsidiary of Criterion Capital.
The documents show that 110 Princes Street, a shop-front which was formerly the site of River Island, was purchased by Osmo Energie in June 2026 for £4,525,000.
The rest of the site was purchased in July 2024 by Zedwell Edinburgh for a sum of £13,860,000.
At the end of July, The Herald asked representatives of Criterion Capital if they were still committed to the Zedwell hotel development planned for the site.
They refused to comment, and also did not specify if they would pay the council back for emergency safety works at the site.
“As you know, the fire and its cause are still under investigation by the authorities,” a statement from the company’s PR agency read.
“As such, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome of any investigation or to comment in any detail at this stage.
“We would like to reiterate what we have told you previously, that responsibility for complying with fire safety legislation rests with the respective occupiers.”
