Obstacle Academy under review for permit and safety issues

A sports training institution operating under the name Obstacle Course Academy (OCA) has become the subject of continued regulatory attention after questions emerged regarding the planning status of its premises and the operational safeguards in place for participants. The facility, which offers training for individuals seeking to compete in obstacle course activities, has been located in Triq il-Ħofor, Qormi, for approximately five years. Throughout this period, it has reportedly been functioning without the necessary planning permits.

Given the continued interest in obstacle course training and similar recreational sports in Malta, concerns about regulatory compliance and safety standards have triggered detailed examinations by relevant authorities. The situation remains legally sensitive, with active appeals pending and monitoring procedures in progress. What follows is a detailed, carefully documented overview based on formal communications from involved parties, while avoiding any speculative or potentially defamatory assertions.

Background of the facility

The site hosting the OCA is situated in a relatively secluded area surrounded by agricultural land. Its location and the nature of the development have drawn the attention of the Planning Authority (PA), which issued an enforcement notice two years ago. The notice referred to what the PA described as “illegal development which consists in the change of use of a field to a site being used for sports activities, placing of a container, installation of a metal structure roofed with insulated sheets, and placing of sports equipment and palettes.”

According to publicly available procedural information, an enforcement notice of this kind signals that the PA had identified structures or uses of land that did not fall under existing approval frameworks. The notice does not itself constitute a final determination of wrongdoing but initiates a process during which the entity or individual responsible has the opportunity to contest the findings, seek remediation, or file an appeal.

Pending appeal and legal process

The developer associated with the OCA, Alex Tanti, filed an appeal before the Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT), challenging the PA’s enforcement actions. This appeal remains pending, and the next scheduled hearing is set for 17 February 2026. Until the tribunal reaches a final decision, the matter remains sub judice.

Under current procedures, once an appeal is formally filed, daily fines arising from an enforcement notice are typically suspended until the appeal is concluded. This legal mechanism aims to prevent penalizing individuals or businesses before their appeal is heard, thus preserving principles of due process and fairness. Accordingly, there are no daily fines being applied at this stage.

It is important to emphasize that the ongoing appeal means that no definitive legal conclusion has yet been reached regarding the status of the development or the presence of any breach. All decisions remain the responsibility of the adjudicating tribunal, which will evaluate evidence and issue its determination in due course.

Regulatory oversight by AIMS

Given that the facility is associated with sporting activities, the matter has also drawn the attention of the Authority for Integrity in Maltese Sports (AIMS). AIMS’ chief executive officer, Kevin Azzopardi, confirmed that the regulator is aware of issues raised about the site. He stated that the authority’s director of integrity, Sandro Camilleri, is reviewing information provided in a report forwarded to AIMS.

According to Azzopardi, “The facility is a private institution that has not begun the process of official registration with the authority, though we are still looking into it. We are monitoring this situation closely.”

Azzopardi additionally indicated that regulatory bodies overseeing sports-related businesses expect all institutions to adhere to applicable legal frameworks. He noted that entities found in breach of relevant regulations may be subject to restrictions or prohibitions. His statements reflect the authority’s legal obligations without implying any presumptions about the outcome of ongoing reviews concerning the OCA.

Concerns raised by a parent

A parent who contacted The Shift shared a series of concerns regarding the facility. These observations reportedly included the absence of certain basic amenities, such as a stable electricity supply and running water, and an assertion that no third-party insurance policy was in place to cover accidental injuries.

Such claims are presented here strictly as concerns raised by an individual who engaged with the media and not as verified findings. Their inclusion reflects the fact that these matters were addressed directly in the responses provided by OCA representatives, which are quoted later in this article. Given the procedural sensitivities, no definitive assertions are made about the accuracy of the concerns raised.

OCA’s response to queries

Questions regarding the operational and administrative status of the OCA were directed to the coach responsible for running the facility, Ivan Gauci. Gauci previously served as a swimming coach with Sirens AFC until 2017.

In his response, Gauci emphasized that the matter is currently before the EPRT, stating that “the land use on which our activities are conducted is the subject of an active appeal filed before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT).”

He added that, “Since the legal status and planning requirements of the site’s use are sub judice and pending a final determination by the EPRT, we are unable to comment further on the site’s formal registration status with the Lands Authority for business purposes at this time.”

This statement clarifies the institution’s position that, given the ongoing legal process, further comment regarding land registration or planning status would be inappropriate. Such restraint aligns with common legal practice, particularly in matters where a tribunal is yet to render a decision.

Statements on health and safety procedures

In response to questions regarding safety measures, Gauci stated that the academy maintains communication with the occupational health and safety authority, as well as “other relevant regulatory bodies,” to ensure compliance with required standards. He noted that a health and safety inspection was carried out on the same day the original report was published.

Gauci added: “During the inspection, authority staff verbally complimented the organization on the high standards of safety and maintenance meticulously maintained at the site. Furthermore, we want to assure you that whenever any issues are raised, we immediately take action to keep our facility up to the highest standards.”

He further explained that the activities offered by the academy fall within a category of sports that, according to him, are not covered under “standard comprehensive insurance” policies currently available for such activities. However, he stated that OCA implements “enhanced internal safety protocols, strict supervision, and mandatory participant waivers that acknowledge the inherent risks associated with this sport.”

These comments reflect the institution’s stance regarding safety procedures and the steps it reports taking to mitigate risk. They also highlight the nature of the sport itself, which by its very nature involves physical exertion and obstacles that carry risk. Acknowledgement of inherent risks is common in high-intensity physical training environments, and participant waivers are often used in similar contexts.

Hygiene and facility maintenance

Questions about hygiene practices were also addressed. Gauci stated that the academy attempts to maintain “high standards typically employed by professional indoor fitness facilities” but noted that the outdoor, rural setting of the OCA “necessitates certain practical and unavoidable differences in approach.”

This acknowledgement suggests that the academy aims to adapt its hygiene measures to suit the specific environmental conditions while attempting to align, where possible, with practices common in more conventional indoor fitness establishments.

Other planning matters concerning the developer

The developer linked to the OCA, Alex Tanti, has previously appeared in public reports concerning separate planning matters. Notably, he was associated with an application for the development of “farmer quarters” on land in Buskett classified as Outside Development Zone (ODZ). Although that application was recommended for refusal by a PA case officer, the outcome remains uncertain.

During the most recent board hearing involving that application, Tanti’s architect, George Farrugia, requested a three-month suspension to address the concerns highlighted by the case officer. This prior case is mentioned solely for context, without implying any connection to the ongoing OCA proceedings or suggesting any improper conduct.

Conclusion

The situation involving the Obstacle Course Academy remains in a state of procedural review. The ongoing appeal before the EPRT means that no final determination has yet been made regarding the site’s planning status, legality of structures, or compliance with regulatory frameworks. Both the PA and AIMS have acknowledged their awareness of the matter and appear to be monitoring developments through appropriate legal channels.

OCA representatives maintain that they are cooperating with relevant authorities, adhering to applicable safety standards, and awaiting the outcome of the tribunal proceedings before commenting further on planning-related issues.

Until a final ruling is issued, the matter remains legally unresolved. Any developments will depend upon the findings and decisions of the competent authorities and adjudicating bodies.

FAQs

What is the Obstacle Course Academy?
The Obstacle Course Academy is a private sports training institution offering obstacle course training for individuals preparing for recreational or competitive challenges.

Where is the facility located?
It is situated in Triq il-Ħofor, Qormi, in an area primarily surrounded by agricultural land.

Why is the academy under scrutiny?
The facility is under review due to questions regarding planning permissions, safety standards and regulatory registration procedures.

Has the Planning Authority issued an enforcement notice?
Yes, the Planning Authority issued an enforcement notice two years ago concerning alleged unpermitted development on the site.

Is the enforcement notice final?
No, the enforcement notice is subject to an active appeal before the Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal.

When is the next tribunal hearing?
The next hearing is scheduled for 17 February 2026.

Are there safety concerns?
Concerns were raised by a parent, but the academy states that it maintains communication with relevant authorities and implements enhanced safety protocols.

Does the academy have insurance coverage?
According to the academy, standard comprehensive insurance for this specific type of sport is not available, but internal safety measures and participant waivers are used.

Is the academy registered with sports regulators?
According to AIMS, the academy has not begun formal registration, and the regulator is reviewing the situation.

What happens next?
The matter remains pending until the tribunal issues its final determination, and regulatory authorities continue to monitor developments.