Aalten Heurne

Introduction

This is the report of the first round of conversations about the environmental vision in subarea Aaltense Heurne. A total of 33 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by four employees of the municipality of Aalten. The participants gave permission for photographs to be taken and used for the report and placement on the website of the municipality of Aalten.

Do you have any comments on this report, or would you like to add something for the new environmental vision of the municipality of Aalten? Please email this to omgevingsvisie@aalten.nl.

What was the format and format of this first interview?

This first interview consisted of three parts:

1. a short conversation about what makes the subarea (in this case: Aaltense Heurne) unique, different from other areas, and what points of attention are there for the future;
2. a short conversation about topics (themes) in the living environment that the participants consider most important for their own subarea or for Aalten as a whole (top 3) in the future;
3. a somewhat longer conversation about how participants envision the desired living environment in 2024, and what they think (along those lines) are and are not desirable developments toward the future.

The conversation was conducted in three different subgroups, at three different tables, under the guidance of one employee of the municipality.

What were the outcomes of this initial conversation? 

Below are the outcomes of this first conversation, item by item. Photos were also taken of these outcomes on the evening itself. These can be found at www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie under the button "calendar, agendas and reports". 

Component 1: About the subarea itself 

So in part 1, the question was about what makes the Aaltense Heurne subarea unique, different from other areas, and what are points of interest in this. The following was said about this: 

Table 1:

• Small scale, few agricultural businesses, lack clear core. 
• Social cohesion, tranquility, nature, agriculture.
• Small-scale character, dirt roads, coulisse landscape, tranquility.
• Social cohesion and participation, scenic quality and values, agriculture.
• Rural, natural, quiet, space: this should remain so.
• Beautiful coulisse landscape, lots of variety in buildings (rural and houses).
• Tranquility, mentality, landscape, no horizon pollution.
• Small hamlet, naoberschap, with and for each other.
• Nice location relative to German hinterland, nice rural area with beautiful tree-lined avenues.
• Various activities: agricultural, nature, tourism: these can go together.
• Beautiful farms, in terms of construction and buildings, opportunities to build out.
• Rural area bordering Germany, good accessibility, nice to live there.

 As points of interest for the core qualities of Aaltense Heurne toward the future have been mentioned:

• Relatively older residents, thin population, aging population.
• Lots of traffic flow, few traffic calming measures.
• Many animals (horses, sheep, cows).
• Aging, young people are moving away.
• Traffic safety - no attention to this.

Table 2: 

• Beautiful hiking and biking area, especially for tourists.
• History: How Aaltense Heurne came to be.
• Bordered by Germany (mentioned twice).
• Heurns party.
• Naoberschap.
• Togetherness.
• Social contacts.
• New residents belong.
• Elevation landscape.
• Different crops.  

 As points of interest for the core qualities of Aaltense Heurne toward the future have been mentioned:

• Nothing appointed.  

Table 3:

• Landscape, unique nature (4x mentioned).
• Nationwide.
• Small scale.
• Agriculture is distinctive.
• Neighborhood House (3x mentioned).
• Interconnection.
• Naoberschap (mentioned twice).
• Everyone welcome.
• Volunteers (mentioned twice).
• Peace and quiet (mentioned twice).
• Farms in operation.
• Pastures, farms.
• Roads and bike lanes.
• Hiking trails.
• Gas station and snack bar.
• Signs destination traffic.
• Red forest ants and badgers.

As points of interest for the core qualities of Aaltense Heurne toward the future have been mentioned:

• Concerns about more and more civilian homes in Aalten Heurne; that hinders farmers.  
• Space needed for housing and recreation.
• Do not build more private housing because it will be at the expense of current character.
• Keep agriculture etc. as is, because takes care of habitat.
• Maintenance of the outdoor area (What does the municipality do? What policies?).
• Importance of nature.
• Restrictive rules.
• Concerns about business park expansion (4x mentioned).
• Climate, water.
• Attention to biodiversity.
• Leaving youth.
• Livability; retain young families.
• Rejuvenation through relaxed living.
• Aging.
• Sharing of yards.
• Road Safety.
• Noisy asphalt.
• Motorcycles, vintage cars, bike trails.
• Crossing Wikkerinkweg - Bocholtsestraatweg.
• Crossing Hondorp Road - Hameland Road.
• Kiefteweg and 300 m road increasingly used as a route to Winterswijk and business park(s).
• Forest management (mentioned twice).
• Light pollution.
• Right of the strongest (economic).
• Rules for housing (youth).
• Noise standards.
• Noise standards for farms too strict (hospitality, sports, events, etc. are allowed more).
• More pressure and noise due to tourism (mentioned twice).
• Tourism should not become more, too crowded.

Table 4:

• Landscape and nature, neighborhood use.
• Small-scale landscape, social, naoberschap, inspired community center.
• Rural feel, beautiful hiking and biking area. 
• Landscape and hiking trails.
• Sense of autonomy, hilly coulisse landscape.
• Borders Germany, green border crossing, beautiful landscape with wooded banks, quiet cycling.
• Through naoberschap respect for each other, community center is center of this area, expansion of boundary activities.
• Small-scale landscape, no large-scale bio-industry, peace and quiet.
• Landscape, convivial and quiet, nice mix of agriculture and leisure (recreation and tourism).
• Elevation.

As points of interest for the core qualities of Aaltense Heurne toward the future have been mentioned:

• No solar parks.
• No industry.  
• Illegal crossing of Hameland route.

Component 2: On the main topics toward the future 

Part 2 asked for the topics (themes) in the living environment that the participants consider most important for their own subarea or for Aalten as a whole. They were asked to indicate their own top 3 on a list of 24 topics in the living environment (ranging from noise, water etc. to building, infrastructure, agriculture and nature). The results were as follows: 

Table 1: (most often mentioned, in order):

1. Livability, quality of life, Agriculture, Housing and development.
2. Social cohesion and participation.
3. Landscape quality/values, Nature and biodiversity, Economy and employment.
4. Spatial planning,exercise-friendly environment, public space and greenery, mobility and road safety.

 Table 2: (most often mentioned, in order):

1. Spatial Planning (3x).
2. Residential construction and building (3x).   

Table 3: (most often mentioned, in order): 

1. Agriculture (4x).
2. Livability and quality of life (3x).
3. Landscape quality and values (3x).
4. Social cohesion and participation (3x).
5. Water management (3x).
6. Nature and biodiversity (2x).
7. Housing and construction (2x). 

 Table 4 (most often mentioned, in order): 

1. Landscape quality/values, Livability/quality of life, Housing/building.
2. Mobility and road safety, Nature and biodiversity, Health/care/vitality.
3. Sustainability, Climate Adaptation, Environment (noise, odor/smell, air quality), Energy supply and renewable energy, Social cohesion and participation. 

 Component 3: What is and is not desirable toward the future 

Component 3, then, focused on how participants envision the desired living environment in 2024, and what they consider (along those lines) desirable and undesirable developments toward the future. The results were as follows: 

Table 1: 

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Nothing appointed. 

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

 Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, desired:

• Lifetime housing, farmhouses split into multiple housing units for first-time buyers.
• Affordable housing.
• Maintain the landscape character.
• Adjunct housing, this gives youth opportunities.
• Bike lanes wider (example Bodendijk, Kiefteweg, etc.).
• Replanting.
• Landscape preservation.
• Starters - senior housing - courtyards.
• Activities small-scale, appropriate to the environment.
• As it is now it can stay, small buildings in yards.
• Plant nature, forests, more hiking trails, preserve tranquility.
• Road Safety.
• Allow nature to grow, preserve rural style, promote walking through trails.
• Mantel homes allowed.
• Maintain quiet appearance, (very) small-scale business/tourism, more dirt roads/paths.
• Support social initiatives.
• Be more flexible with occupancy of existing buildings (elderly, youth) courtyards.

 Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, undesirable:

• Not more business parks, windmills and solar farms.
• Not too many large-scale activities.
• No solar farms and windmills.
• Residential development outside already built-up lots (large-scale).
• No business park, big windmills.
• Large-scale housing construction, industry in the (Aalten) Heurne, new major roads through Heurne.
• Partially the non-maintained roadsides, much too high greenery at roads in the curves bad for road safety.

Table 2:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Nothing appointed.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable: 

• Nothing appointed. 

Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, desired:

• Affordable new construction for starters, including at the community center, near a barn to be demolished.
• VAB sites, build back starter/life-saving homes cheaply for that purpose. 

Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, undesirable:

• Sneak traffic increases.

Table 3:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Climate change necessitates changes in land use, such as for water storage.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed. 

Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, desired:

• Maintain vitality area.
• Preserve Heurnsen Tref.  
• Maintaining dairy farms.
• More different crops (grain, corn, grass, etc.).
• Keep unique area that way; an agricultural environment with plenty of nature.
• Sustainable agriculture.
• More small-scale farming and ranching.
• More local economy.
• Affinity with neighborhood makes livability greater.

 Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, undesirable:

• Missed opportunity: Brethouwerweg 2: housing development on smaller lots for local youth (starter homes).
• Agriculture and housing at odds (odor, noise, etc.)
• Chickens (intensive).
• Concern about how many people are still producing food precisely for the Netherlands.
• Only two more dairy farmers.
• Development from animal husbandry to arable farming does not fit in Aalten Heurne (= soil = sandy soil is not suitable).
• By now, more than enough tourism.
• Planting Hameland Road (for traffic safety on service road; difference is hardly noticeable now).

Table 4:

For Aalten as a whole, desired: 

• Nothing appointed.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable: 

• Nothing appointed.

Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, desired:

• Ensuring smallness of scale.
• Renewable energy on a household basis.
• Water management against desiccation.
• Maintaining Authenticity.
• Compensate farmers for construction and maintenance of wooded banks, etc. 
• Accommodate initiative for housing construction on own property, split/build on own property, for young people/affordable etc. (8x mentioned).
• Keeping attention to original landscape.
• Solar panels on rooftops, not on farmland.
• Improve traffic safety towards Aalten (Wikkerinkweg crossing).
• Building appropriate in surroundings, no mansions.
• Safe crossing from area East over Hamelandroute, and service road Wikkerinkweg planting/ clarity. Legalize crossing Hamelandroute - Brethouwerweg, Large agricultural vehicles on service road is dangerous for cyclists (improve).
• No new residential core.
• More field edges and wooded borders.
• Hamaland route - Limit 50 km per hour!
• Hamaland route county - crossing for children is dangerous.

 Specific to subarea Aaltense Heurne, undesirable:

• No major recreation, no recreation park expansion.
• No industry along Hameland route, no expansion of business park, industry (5x).

 Date of second interview

The second discussion in and about subarea Aaltense Heurne will take place on Friday, November 22 in D'n Heurnsen Tref (19.00-21.30 hrs.). Then we will discuss specific choices to be made because we also have to take into account policies of other governments, legal and financial constraints, et cetera.

Looking forward to seeing you then!

Report 2nd discussion round environmental vision subarea Aaltense Heurne

• Date:November 22, 2024
• Time:7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
• Location:D'n Heurnsen Tref, Aaltense Heurne, Aalten

Introduction

The municipality of Aalten faces the task of creating a new environmental vision for the entire territory of the municipality together with its residents. One of the ways we do this is by engaging in area-specific discussions with our residents and other stakeholders about what they consider important for the future of their own living environment.

This is the report of the second conversation in and with subarea Aaltense Heurne. A total of about 15 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by 4 employees of the municipality of Aalten.

Do you have any comments on this report? Please pass them on via omgevingsvisie@aalten.nl.
If you have any suggestions for the new environmental vision of the municipality of Aalten, please also use this e-mail address.

For more information

See www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie. You can find all reports of all conversations held (including in other subareas) there.

What was the purpose of this second conversation?

In the first round of interviews, we retrieved (1) what residents find typical about the subarea in question, (2) we retrieved what living environment topics are seen as important(st) toward 2040, and (3) we asked about desirable and undesirable developments toward 2040.

In the second round of interviews, we mainly collected opinions on issues we presented: If we have to choose between A or B, which do residents prefer and why?

How was the format and format of this second interview?

The second interview consisted of the following components:

• Welcome to 2040: Upon entering, all participants were given a post-it with their age in 2040 taped on, followed by a brief presentation on what our world might look like in 16 years.
• The project manager then explained the how and why of the environmental vision, what the first round of discussions yielded and the intent of the second round.
• As a warm-up for the discussions, participants were then presented with a number of thought-provoking statements.
• Participants then went into groups to discuss up to 5 issues:
  1. Energy supply
  2. Climate Change
  3. Housing and care
  4. Activity in relation to peace and quiet
  5. Landscape, biodiversity, water quality
• Plenary wrap-up and look ahead to the sequel.

What were the outcomes of this second conversation?

The discussion of the (up to five) issues was conducted in 2 different subgroups, at 2 different tables, accompanied per table by 2 employees of the municipality. The outcomes of these group discussions were as follows:

Energy supply issue

On the one hand, many people do not want more windmills and preferably no solar parks; on the other hand, energy demand is only increasing, insulation and sun on roofs alone do not provide enough, and we want to be energy-neutral (i.e., generate as much energy as we consume ourselves) by 2030 at the latest. The proposition presented on this line was as follows:
"We will not shift our own energy needs to another area." Agree or disagree? 

The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Agreed, because if we can't do this in Aalten itself, how could a city ever do it?
• Agree, make maximum contribution within the possibilities.
• Disagree, solve nationwide; windmills, for example, where there is wind.
• Disagree, infrastructure is already nationwide, even European; make better use of what is already there first.
• Agreed, where behavior about consumption should also be discussion.
• Disagree, regulate nationwide (nuclear power?); hamlets are too small, structure not right yet.
• Agreed, partly by consuming less and partly by investing in sustainable solutions.
• Disagree, regulate nationwide.
• Set up as a collective facility, no longer leave it to the market; way too far gone!
• Agree, energy neutral self-regulate, own behavior/responsibility.
• Government/municipality should inform, encourage, facilitate, and set a good example themselves, plus reward good behavior.

Table 2

• Once, place 1 or 2 large windmills and done!
• Agreed, self-solve with windmills.
• Agreed, but then provide energy storage so that we can consume in winter what we generate in summer (and possibly vice versa).
• Disagree, the government should regulate this nationwide; self-use cannot yet be adequately regulated.
• Agree, as a principle, but government should encourage, facilitate, network etc.
• Agreed, where the government does need to lend a helping hand.
• Also thinking about hydrogen instead of gas.
• Government/municipality must ensure that it is also financially attractive to (want to) be self-sufficient; see, for example, the scrapping of the balancing scheme.
• Those who suffer from it should also be able to benefit from it.
• There are already large wind turbines just across the border, so perhaps add a few more there and benefit from them together.

Climate change issue

Due to the changing climate, we are facing more and more weather extremes: more frequent periods of extreme drought/heat, more frequent periods of flooding. The choice presented on this line was as follows:
"A. We adapt our land use to the changing climate (such as agriculture and housing, for example, on high dry ash trees and the very wet soils we give back to nature) or B. We make every effort to preserve and protect the current use of land, for example, with drainage, raising levees, pumping dry, sprinkling and the like." 

The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Didn't get around to it anymore.

Table 2

• A, we adapt (and already do).
• B, protect current land use.
• B, technology is helping us move into the future.
• A, because ultimately cheaper and more natural; but no excuse for government to do nothing
• B, climate resistant planting, water must be able to leave in case of emergency, plus retain water as long as possible.
• A, do some adaptation to climate change.
• Government/municipality does need to provide the space to take their own measures.

Housing and care issue

Many young people find it difficult or impossible to find suitable and affordable housing. Seniors want to move on, but where to? If senior housing must be built for this flow, where do we prefer to put it? As much as possible in their own immediate surroundings? Or as much as possible in the vicinity of facilities on which the elderly often depend at a late(er) age? The question/choice we presented on this line was as follows: "A. Do we bring the elderly toward facilities as much as possible? Or B. Do we bring facilities towards the elderly as much as possible, so that they can stay where they live for as long as possible (e.g. by making house splitting easier, generational inheritance, arranging good transportation et cetera)." 

The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Enabling assisted living and generational yards.
• Communities are resilient; can absorb and self-organize a lot.
• Mix of young and old remains important.
• B, is already happening in Mariënvelde, for example; as a community take care of; after all, facilities are becoming increasingly unaffordable.
• Also in the countryside.
• Create more smaller homes, good for flow.
• B, letting young and old live together (but maybe young people think differently about this).
• B, residential splitting, other forms of housing, welfare and well-being are of interest.
• Tips for government/municipality: Become more flexible, stop thinking from the present because that is precisely what makes it too unwieldy/bureaucratic; look to 2040 and what can and is possible then, for example, self-driving vehicles that take the elderly to care facilities.
• And privatization has gone way too far!

Table 2

• B, because the elderly prefer to stay in their own environment as long as possible.
• B, but in combination with clustered senior housing elsewhere in the hamlet.
• B, because older people prefer to stay where they are (mentioned twice).
• At least do not require them to move to housing elsewhere.
• B, because gives room for "ownership" (self-responsibility); appeals most to me personally.
• Government/municipality must remove obstacles/obstructive regulations.
• A, but then there must indeed be supply in the larger cores.
• B, and giving younger generations the opportunity to be able to live in rural areas; ultimately gives better livability, more action, more life.
• With a better mix of young and old also greater opportunity for informal care.
• If housing becomes available because the elderly are moving away, how do we ensure that it ends up with those we are happy to give it to, rather than rich Westerners?

Issue of business activity in relation to peace and quiet

Economic activity is important for the quality of life, but activity (including tourism) is sometimes at the expense of the peace and quiet and the space that are so characteristic of the Achterhoek and that many Aalten citizens want to preserve. The proposition presented on this line was as follows: "To increase employment and jobs, we must give more space to business activity, even if this is at the expense of peace, space and (traffic) safety. Agree, or disagree?"
The responses were as follows:

Table 1

• It is not only about prosperity, but also about well-being.
• Rather no tourism promotion policy.
• Not more tourism; there are limits to what our environment can handle.
• Activity does matter to retain youth.

Table 2

• Didn't get around to it anymore.

Landscape, biodiversity and water quality issues

In the first round of discussions on the environmental vision, it was often expressed that the landscape should be preserved as it is. At the same time, the landscape is under pressure and is even deteriorating. See for example biodiversity, water quality but also beech trees that die because the soil is too wet, ditches that for a large part already lack life, et cetera. In short, "keep it as it is" does not seem sufficient. The proposition presented on this line was as follows:
"We need to invest in maintaining our landscape and adding landscape elements (such as wooded banks, ditches, footpaths, trees, thickets, etc.) and switch to nature-inclusive agriculture to preserve our landscape, promote biodiversity and improve water quality. Agree, or disagree?"

Note: Because many agreed fairly quickly with this statement, some tables asked the additional question of which investments in the landscape should be made first.

The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Not wanting to eat cucumbers in the winter!
• In the current system, farmers do have to go big to still make some money; that will only change if we are willing to pay more for our food.
• On the German chance of the border is much more biodiversity, much more wildlife etc. This is due to less intensive agriculture, but also more wooded areas etc.
• No more large-scale monoculture.
• Less poison (mentioned twice).
• Paying more for food.
• Free nature areas, i.e., letting areas (nature) do their thing, no more interfering.
• Investing in biodiversity and water quality.
• Encourage use of different crops and small scale.
• Start with space and facilities for small critters, such as bees, etc. and work from there to larger animals and plants.
• Government/municipality must stop short-term swerving policies, but stick to one vision for the long(er) term.
• And every time the jars run out ...

Table 2

• Agreed, collaboration and other revenue models.
• Disagree, that owner should do it himself/on his own (what do other residents contribute?)
• Agreed, where the government should be the guiding factor: What (for example) will and will not be cut down (trees)? What is/isn't sown for the bees?
• Agreed, by the way, a lot is already possible; above all, you have to see it and want it.
• Agreed, but the more parties that participate in maintenance, the harder it is to create a plan.
• Difficult to make decisions about other people's land; farmers, for example, must also be able to earn from it.
• Maintenance of forests by the Forestry Commission is far too crude and seems to be purely for the money.

How to move forward?

After the second round of meetings we will describe all input (including policies of other governments, etc.) into one integral, coherent and as concrete as possible concept/proposal for an environmental vision, in which for Aalten as a whole but also for the individual subareas is indicated what the desired and undesired developments are towards 2040 and (in outline) how we want to realize the desired living environment in 2040. With this concept/proposal we will first return to the subareas in a third and final round, asking: What do you think? Only then will we take the draft environmental vision to the city council.

NOTE: This third and final round of discussions on the environmental vision will NOT be March 2025, but a bit later in the spring! You will be notified of this at a later date.