The key issue with the way cultural heritage is managed in the planning process is that it is too narrowly defined and managed. Cultural heritage has been assumed to be the purview of cultural heritage experts only, and is assessed only in limited terms of architectural or historical interest. In most cultural heritage assessments there is limited analysis of the living cultural value of the heritage asset. In particular, there is limited or no analysis of how the extant local community interacts with the heritage asset. I consider that heritage protection would be strengthened by considering the current social value of a heritage asset in these terms in planning assessments. A particular example of this is in the case Minawood Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2009] VCAT 440, which notes the value that a particular hotel plays in defining a sense of place, regardless of its objective heritage value. Living culture needs to be given greater weight in planning assessment, and the definition of heritage should be expanded to encompass the elements of the built environment that contribute to the sense of place of an area, regardless of their age or architectural value. At present it is generally classified as ‘neighbourhood character’, which is generally narrowly assessed in terms of landscape and architecture rather than social value. A large part of what actually gives a neighbourhood its character gets ignored in this type of assessment.