The draft Old Goa heritage bylaws were expected to close a regulatory gap around one of India’s most important historic sites. Instead, the framework has brought a deeper problem into view: protecting a World Heritage Site requires more than publishing restrictions. It requires accurate maps, clearly assigned authority, enforceable records, public participation and a development-control system capable of resisting incremental commercial and construction pressure.
The draft bylaws for the Churches and Convents of Goa were framed by the National Monuments Authority (NMA), Delhi, in consultation with the Indian Heritage Cities Network Foundation. They seek to guide physical, social and economic interventions within 300 metres in all directions of the protected monuments. The regulations were notified in the central gazette on December 3, 2025, inviting suggestions and objections within a month.
Their arrival followed a gap of about 40 years without a management plan for the World Heritage Site. That absence matters because Old Goa is not merely a collection of individually protected buildings. It is a historic urban landscape whose meaning depends on relationships between monuments, roads, open areas, settlement patterns, views and surrounding development. A rulebook focused only on monument boundaries cannot, by itself, manage that larger system.
The concerns reported by the Times of India – Goa show that the draft is being judged not only by the restrictions it proposes, but by whether those restrictions can be implemented. Experts have questioned the document’s mapping, enforcement provisions, height limit, heritage safeguards and public consultation process. These are not separate technical objections. Together, they determine whether the regulations can translate heritage protection from a stated objective into day-to-day control over land and construction.
Old Goa’s history makes that challenge particularly complex. The settlement was once described as the ‘Rome of the East’ and was enclosed by a 21-kilometre-long wall extending around areas including Corlim and Carambolim. Since the 18th century, the historic city has progressively contracted into a fragmented cluster of monuments. According to the report, road expansion, construction and the growth of kiosks within the regulated area have affected the visual integrity of the former walled city.
That history creates a basic planning problem. The heritage value of Old Goa is not contained only in the surviving churches and convents. It also lies in the historic landscape around them and in the way the site is experienced from roads, public spaces and surrounding properties. When development is approved one plot at a time, the cumulative impact can be significant even if each individual intervention appears manageable. The draft bylaws therefore face the difficult task of controlling change across a living area rather than preserving a site as an isolated museum object.
The most immediate weakness identified by experts is the lack of corresponding survey numbers and ownership details for properties within prohibited and regulated zones. Conservation architect and ICOMOS national coordinator for Risk Preparedness Poonam Verma-Mascarenhas said the survey numbers and footprint details should have been verified through records of the Archaeological Survey of India’s Goa Circle, particularly for prohibited zones and intersections with regulated zones.
This is an administrative issue with direct consequences for residents, property owners, architects and enforcement agencies. A regulation can specify a distance from a protected monument, but implementation requires officials to determine which parcel is affected, who owns it, what already exists there and which authority must act when a proposal is submitted. Without parcel-level information, the boundary between a prohibited area and a regulated area can remain difficult to apply. That uncertainty can delay legitimate work, weaken enforcement or create room for conflicting interpretations.
It also explains why heritage regulation cannot be separated from ordinary land administration. Survey records, ownership information, building footprints and monument boundaries must work together. If those systems are not consolidated, the practical burden falls on individual applicants and local officials, while unauthorised construction may be detected only after it has altered the site.
The question of institutional responsibility is equally important. The draft was prepared by the NMA, while the ASI has a direct role in relation to centrally protected monuments. The report says ASI officials declined to comment, stating that the matter falls entirely within the NMA’s jurisdiction, while NMA officials could not be contacted. Verma-Mascarenhas argued that the NMA must make jurisdiction clear and take responsibility, along with the ASI, for preparing implementable bylaws.
This division matters because heritage protection involves several layers of government. A central authority may frame regulations, the ASI may administer protected monuments, and local bodies may control permissions and commercial activity. If these functions are not connected through a clear decision-making chain, the existence of a regulation does not guarantee coordinated action. A local approval, a heritage clearance and enforcement against unauthorised work can proceed through different institutional channels unless the framework explicitly links them.
The reported history of alleged illegal construction illustrates the stakes. Old Goa has seen protests over alleged unauthorised development, including a bungalow near the Arch of the Viceroy in a protected area, as well as proposals for projects within heritage zones. Verma-Mascarenhas called for a dedicated special officer within the ASI Goa Circle to manage the heritage zones effectively. The proposal points to a wider implementation question: whether existing institutions have the staff, authority and local presence needed to monitor change continuously rather than respond only after disputes become public.
Height control has emerged as another significant point of contention. The draft proposes an 11.5-metre height limit, while heritage advocates have suggested reducing it to 8 metres. Architect and urban planner Tahir Noronha said the skyline is an important element in determining the outstanding universal value of World Heritage Sites.
The disagreement is not simply about a numerical limit. Height affects how monuments are seen, how new structures relate to the historic landscape and whether the visual dominance of protected buildings is retained. In a fragmented historic area, even structures outside the immediate footprint of a monument can influence sightlines and the character of approaches to it. A height rule therefore needs to operate alongside mapped views, building footprints, surrounding land uses and documentation of the existing landscape.
Noronha also objected to the absence of a requirement for documentation before and after repairs or renovations. He said the gap could allow a new structure to be presented as a repair of an existing one, using photographs from another project to support the claim. This concern highlights the difference between regulating new construction and monitoring changes described as maintenance. In heritage areas, repair permissions can become a route through which the built environment changes without being treated as development.
The same issue applies to building materials and heritage impact assessments. Noronha raised concerns about restrictions on incompatible materials and other provisions in the draft. If the rules do not define what must be documented, what constitutes compatibility and when an assessment is required, officials may be left to make case-by-case decisions. That can produce inconsistent outcomes and make the regulations difficult for property owners and professionals to follow.
Public participation is another weakness identified in the reported process. Stakeholders in Goa alleged that the draft was not published in the Goa official gazette or adequately publicised through local newspapers. Verma-Mascarenhas said she found the document on the NMA website only after seeing a social media post and described it as difficult for property owners, architects and promoters to use.
Consultation is especially important when regulations affect private properties, businesses and local access. A document may formally invite objections, but participation is limited if affected groups cannot easily find it, understand the maps or identify how the rules apply to their land. In that situation, the process can satisfy a procedural requirement without producing the local knowledge needed to improve the framework.
Commercial activity adds another layer to the challenge. Heritage activists said the local panchayat appeared to have prioritised commercial activity by permitting kiosks and shops at strategic locations. Activist John Mascarenhas alleged that approvals obtained for residential purposes were also being followed by commercial use of the premises. These claims are attributed to the activists and are not independently established in the supplied report, but they identify the pressure that the bylaws will have to address.
A heritage area is also an economic and social space. Visitors need services, local businesses seek income and residents require homes and access. The planning question is not whether all activity should stop, but whether uses are compatible with the site’s significance and whether permissions are monitored after approval. A regulation that sets out restrictions without a credible system for checking actual use may have limited effect on the ground.
The draft bylaws therefore sit at the intersection of conservation, land records, local governance and development control. Their effectiveness will depend on whether the final framework consolidates monument boundaries with survey numbers, clarifies the responsibilities of the NMA and ASI, establishes a practical enforcement structure, addresses height and skyline concerns, and records the condition of properties before and after work.
The report also says the Bombay high court was recently informed that the bylaws would be approved by Parliament. That reported next step makes the quality of the final document more consequential. Once a regulatory framework is approved, ambiguity can shift from a drafting problem into an implementation dispute involving property owners, local authorities and conservation agencies.
What the evidence currently confirms is that Old Goa has moved from a long period without a management plan to a contested attempt to establish one. What remains unresolved is whether the draft can provide the mapped boundaries, institutional clarity, public accessibility and enforcement capacity required to protect a historic urban landscape. The next stage of the process will show whether the bylaws become a usable governance instrument or remain a set of broad safeguards that are difficult to apply where development pressure is already visible.
