Abstract: It is almost a truism that place-identity embodies different meanings for different people, highlighted during conflicts over shared space by different groups. But to what extent do the terms of such place-identity relate to the requirements of a development approvals system premised on place-sensitive planning? And to what degree, and in what ways are such meanings shared or differentiated within a group of residents who are united in its defence? These questions are explored through a case study of the inner-city Melbourne suburb of Brunswick. The paper utilizes interview data to construct and map ‘fields of care’: the spatial field of concern for each interviewee. Using this technique, it was found that interviewees experience the place as a product of how they move around it, particularly via walking, cycling and public transport. There are significant variations in perceived place boundaries, centres of meaning and ‘hot spots’ with intense intersections of different meanings in the same places. The ‘field of care’ maps illustrate the ways people talk about place and provide a method for urban research that is sensitive not only to place-identity, but highlights what is often occluded in qualitative research on place: the differences in place-identity that exist within groups otherwise regarded as having a similar relationship with a place. These maps are then contrasted with others that effectively represent the field of care of the planning system – maps of development projects, the areas notified by planning officials and the source of objections. The nexus between these two kinds of map is the requirement placed on objectors to state how a proposed development will affect them. We suggest that these differences are illustrative of the problem presented to planning policy by the issue of place identity, enshrined in legislation as ‘neighbourhood character’.