San Ġwann ODZ land use dispute over illegal obstacle course site

A substantial stretch of land designated as outside development zone in San Ġwann has become the focus of renewed scrutiny following the unauthorised transformation of the site into an outdoor obstacle course racing facility. The plot covers an area roughly equivalent to a standard 11 a side football pitch and lies only a short distance from the San Ġwann industrial estate. Despite its size and visibility, the site currently remains largely inactive and shows no evidence of enforcement action to address the irregular use that has taken place over recent years.

The land is associated with the operator of Warehouse Fitness Studio, Leanne Bartolo. According to publicly available planning records, the site does not benefit from a valid planning permit either for the placement of non fixed structures or for its use as an outdoor sports or fitness facility. The situation raises wider questions about land use governance, agricultural protection and the enforcement of planning law in Malta, particularly in areas formally designated to remain free from development.

Planning status and regulatory background

The only planning process ever initiated in relation to the approximately 7,500 square metre plot was a screening request submitted to the Planning Authority. The request sought “to sanction the use of a field for fitness and educational activities, including the location of lightweight movable structures” and also proposed “the formation of a WC and showers within an existing agricultural store and to replace existing steel gates with timber ones”.

That request did not proceed to determination. It remained pending until it was withdrawn by the Planning Authority after the lapse of the standard five year period allowed for such applications. Once that period expired, the application ceased to have any legal standing and no development permission was granted.

In replies to questions from The Shift, Bartolo stated that she had not been aware of the expiry date of the screening request. She said she had since instructed her architect, Colin Zammit, to submit a fresh application to regularise the situation. At the time of writing, no such application is visible on the Planning Authority’s online Map Server, which is the official public record of submitted planning proposals.

The absence of a valid application means that any use of the land for organised fitness activities or the placement of structures, whether temporary or otherwise, remains unauthorised under current planning legislation.

Environmental authority concerns over agricultural land

Documents available on the Planning Authority website show that the Environment and Resources Authority had already expressed formal concerns during the screening stage. The ERA specifically referred to “the cessation of agricultural production from the site”, highlighting the importance of safeguarding land that is zoned for agricultural use.

The authority noted that while it is generally supportive of obstacle course racing facilities in principle, this support is conditional on such facilities not being located on agricultural land. The ERA warned that allowing such a change of use could set an undesirable precedent.

“Experience has also shown that commitments such as this proposal are irreversible once they are allowed to become established. Besides, the permitting of such activity may create a precedent for similar types of applications set within agricultural land,” the ERA’s senior officer stated in the official response.

These concerns reflect long standing policy positions that treat agricultural land as a finite national resource. Once land is removed from agricultural production, even informally, it is often difficult to restore it to its original purpose.

New legal framework on agricultural land protection

The position taken by the ERA is consistent with more recent legislative developments. In 2025, the government introduced the Protection of Agricultural Land Regulations 2025. These regulations establish formal measures to protect agricultural land from degradation and misuse and to “ensure that agricultural land is maintained adequately for agricultural purposes”.

Among the tools provided by the new regulations is the possibility of direct intervention where land is found not to be used for any valid agricultural activity. In extreme cases, this may include the seizure of land if owners fail to comply with obligations to maintain agricultural use.

Although these regulations postdate some of the activity at the San Ġwann site, they underline a broader policy direction that prioritises agricultural preservation over alternative commercial uses, even when those uses are presented as temporary or non invasive.

Claims about land condition and historical use

Bartolo told The Shift that she acquired the land in 2020 and described it as “abandoned and unused” at the time of purchase. She suggested that the condition of the site justified efforts to put it to alternative use, particularly for community oriented fitness activities.

However, a review of historical satellite imagery paints a more nuanced picture. Images from different periods show that the land alternated between phases of active cultivation, indicated by tilled soil and planted crops and periods of neglect. This pattern is not uncommon in small scale agricultural plots but it undermines the claim that the land was entirely abandoned on a permanent basis.

The imagery also shows that surrounding plots have continued to be cultivated over the years, suggesting that the area as a whole has retained agricultural viability despite intermittent inactivity on individual parcels.

Fireworks and soil suitability arguments

Bartolo also questioned the suitability of the land for agricultural use on environmental grounds. She pointed to the fact that the area is used for the setting off of fireworks during local festi. Fireworks residues are known to introduce contaminants into the soil and may affect soil quality if concentrations are sufficiently high.

While it is acknowledged that fireworks can have environmental impacts, satellite imagery again indicates that agricultural activity has persisted in the area. Neither previous owners of the site nor neighbouring farmers appear to have been permanently deterred from planting crops as a result of festi related activities.

From a regulatory perspective, the presence of potential contaminants does not automatically justify a change of land use. Instead, it would normally trigger assessments of soil quality and remediation measures rather than a shift towards non agricultural commercial use.

Engagement with policymakers and regulatory uncertainty

Bartolo stated that she has spent several years engaging with policymakers in an attempt to develop a regulatory framework for obstacle course racing as a sport. According to her account, these efforts were aimed at creating designated outdoor spaces that could host such activities lawfully and safely.

She referred to a meeting during a charity event at Campus Hub attended by Prime Minister Robert Abela. “The most recent discussion took place when the current prime minister, Robert Abela, visited our charity event at Campus Hub. During this visit, he informed us that a relevant policy was being drafted and would be published soon. We are, unfortunately, still waiting,” Bartolo said.

Her comments reflect a broader frustration among operators in this niche sector, who argue that the absence of a clear policy framework leaves them in regulatory limbo. However, from a legal standpoint, the lack of a specific policy does not override existing planning and environmental laws.

Current use of the site and attempts at regularisation

Bartolo said that following years of discussions with authorities that did not lead to concrete outcomes, the San Ġwann site is now used only minimally. She stated that just two classes per week are held there while efforts continue to regularise the situation.

She also defended the concept behind the use of the land, arguing that it provides children and adults with access to open green space in an increasingly urbanised environment. “In conclusion, I believe that using agricultural or ODZ land as a park-style space for children is justifiable. That said, I fully agree that legislation is necessary to prevent abuse. We have already proposed several safeguards to the government, including no permanent structures, mandatory qualifications for applicants and the use of only demountable obstacles,” she added.

Such arguments raise complex policy questions about public access to open space versus the protection of designated agricultural land. Current legislation, however, places clear limits on what is permissible in ODZ areas regardless of the perceived social benefits.

Wider pattern within the obstacle course sector

The situation in San Ġwann is not isolated. Other operators within the obstacle course racing sector have made similar complaints about regulatory uncertainty. The Shift has previously reported on illegal outdoor OCR facilities operated by other individuals.

Ivan Gauci and Julian Briffa, owners of two separate OCR businesses, were both found to be operating without planning permission. They form part of a national OCR organisation that is currently under investigation by the authorities. While Gauci remains under investigation by multiple bodies, Briffa eventually obtained permission from the Planning Authority to sanction his outdoor installation.

Both men, along with several other sources consulted during the investigation, criticised what they described as a lack of legal clarity for outdoor OCR activities. Their experiences illustrate that while regularisation is sometimes possible, it depends on site specific factors and compliance with planning and environmental policies.

Enforcement and public interest considerations

The absence of visible enforcement action at the San Ġwann site has prompted questions about consistency in the application of planning law. Enforcement discretion is a recognised aspect of regulatory systems, but prolonged inaction can undermine public confidence.

From a legal perspective, the key issue remains whether unauthorised use of ODZ agricultural land should be tolerated while policy discussions continue. Authorities have repeatedly stated that planning control is not optional and that commercial activities must comply with existing rules regardless of sector specific policy gaps.

The case highlights the tension between entrepreneurial initiatives and land use regulation. It also underscores the importance of transparent enforcement to ensure that agricultural land protection is applied evenly and predictably.

Conclusion

The unauthorised use of ODZ land in San Ġwann as an obstacle course facility reflects broader challenges in land management, policy development and regulatory enforcement. While operators argue for clearer rules and designated spaces, current law provides limited flexibility when it comes to agricultural land.

Until new policies are formally adopted, planning and environmental authorities remain bound by existing frameworks that prioritise agricultural preservation. The San Ġwann case serves as a reminder that good intentions and community oriented aims do not in themselves confer legal authorisation, particularly in sensitive land use contexts.

FAQs

What is ODZ land in Malta?
ODZ land refers to outside development zone areas that are protected from development to preserve agriculture and open space.

Why is the San Ġwann site considered unauthorised?
The site lacks a valid planning permit for fitness activities and non fixed structures on agricultural land.

What concerns did the Environment and Resources Authority raise?
The ERA warned about the cessation of agricultural production and the risk of setting precedents on agricultural land.

Was any planning application approved for the site?
No application was approved and the only screening request expired after five years without determination.

What are the Protection of Agricultural Land Regulations 2025?
They are regulations designed to safeguard agricultural land and ensure it remains in active agricultural use.

Did the land have a history of agricultural activity?
Satellite imagery shows periods of cultivation alternating with periods of neglect rather than permanent abandonment.

Why was fireworks activity cited as an issue?
Fireworks can contaminate soil but evidence shows agriculture continued in the area despite festi activity.

What justification was given for the obstacle course use?
The operator argued it provided access to green open space and involved only non permanent structures.

Are other OCR operators facing similar issues?
Yes several operators have been investigated for operating without permits due to regulatory uncertainty.

Can such facilities be regularised?
Regularisation is possible only if planning and environmental policies are fully satisfied on a case by case basis.