By The Courier’s Editorial Board
There are few landmarks more synonymous with Saint Andrews than the Market Wharf. That’s why the recent project aimed at safeguarding the wharf from future damage and expanding Market Square has struck such a deep chord—and, in many ways, divided the community.
Neighbours, friends, and longtime residents have found themselves on opposite sides of the issue. The debate has filled headlines and social media feeds, but it has also prompted a flurry of letters, emails, phone calls, and in-person conversations with this newspaper. It’s clear the project is more than just an infrastructure upgrade—it’s a matter of identity, values, and the future direction of Saint Andrews.
In response, the editorial board of The Courier feels it is important to address the concerns we’ve heard, and to share the facts as we understand them through our reporting. We also believe it is our responsibility to reflect on the questions being asked—many of which still lack clear answers.
This editorial is not meant to take a side, but to help our community better understand what is at stake, what remains unclear, and why this conversation matters. We believe that open, respectful dialogue is essential, and that informed citizens are the foundation of any healthy democratic community—especially one as passionate and engaged as ours.
The chosen design—a hybrid steel infill—has been described as the public’s preference. Yet the numbers tell a different story. Of the town’s approximately 3,000 residents, only 191 participated in the consultation process, and just 71 supported the selected option. Compounding the issue is the timing: the consultations were held in October 2023, well into the off-season, when many seasonal residents were absent. To present this outcome as a clear reflection of the community’s will is, at best, been considered as misleading by many.
It should be noted that public participation is often a significant hurdle for local governments who often are limited in their reach, but it does not absolve them of their obligation to go above and beyond a project of this magnitude.
Some have suggested that outside influence on the future of the wharf should carry weight. After all, tourists contribute significantly to the local economy. Yet they were not included in the consultation process. Why were those voices—so critical to the town’s livelihood—left out? To date, no clear answer has been offered.
A project of this scale should inspire confidence. Instead, the debate over Market Wharf has raised more questions than answers.
Consider the precedent: a similar infill project at the Saint Andrews Yacht Club has already altered the shoreline and seabed, according to locals, though no formal study was undertaken. Some point to it as justification for moving forward at the wharf; others view it as a cautionary tale. Either way, the lack of independent analysis leaves residents in the dark.
Despite a packed chamber—filled with both supporters and opponents—council voted in favour of proceeding with the tender. Only Deputy Mayor Steve Neil stood in opposition – someone who has spoken to his professional work at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. A tender process, by definition, determines costs. If the bids come in over budget, the project will stall. Does that mean the council is prepared to return to square one? Residents deserve to know.
Environmental concerns remain front and centre. The town cites GEMTEC’s presentation, yet unease lingers about property values, fish habitat, sediment disruption, and future flooding. These are not trivial issues to be waved aside; they strike at the heart of Saint Andrews’ identity and long-term sustainability.
The tender documents themselves have only added to the uncertainty. They propose trucking in almost 43,000 metric tonnes of infill material—raising questions about damage to local roads, noise, and disruption for residents. They also show an asphalt surface across Market Square, directly contradicting what the council has publicly stated– indicating gravel at the outset. The town insists an amendment will be made to remove asphalt from the plan, but the inconsistency has eroded public trust.
Then there is the matter of the environmental impact assessment. The wharf itself does not fall under the current criteria, but the expansion of Market Square is less clear. Has the province been consulted on that portion of the proposal? On these points, silence persists.
Even the motivation for expanding Market Square is murky. Was there a visioning exercise? Who was consulted? When did it occur? Who paid for it? If it predates the current council, has this council been properly briefed? Transparency should be the foundation of a project that will redefine one of the town’s most iconic spaces.
At its core, this debate reflects a larger tension: do nothing, and risk losing the wharf altogether; move ahead, and risk alienating some of the community that feels unheard. The perfect solution may not exist—but the process can, and must, be more transparent, accountable, and respectful of the voices that will live with the outcome.
Market Wharf is not just another infrastructure project. It is the heart of Saint Andrews. If there are misconceptions lurking in the community, “it’s too late” is not the best answer for any government to address clarity, openness, and vision.
