Bredevoort

The first conversation about the environmental vision in Bredevoort was scheduled for Thursday, October 3, 2024. In consultation with the board of Vereniging Bredevoorts Belang, this conversation was skipped because Bredevoort had just presented a new vision of the future on July 4, 2024. For this vision, the residents of Bredevoort have already provided a lot of input in the months before. It was therefore agreed with Bredevoorts Belang that the content of this future vision would be the starting point for the conversations about the environment vision. The first conversation about the environmental vision in Bredevoort took place on Thursday, November 21, 2024.

Future made together. Development plan Bredevoort 2025-2035

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 first conversation in and with sub-area Bredevoort. At the time of the conversation we were already in the second round of talks, but in consultation with Bredevoort it was agreed that Bredevoort was skipped in the first round of talks because Bredevoort had just presented a vision for the future.

A total of about 45 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by 6 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.

Learn more

 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 conversation on the (up to five) issues was conducted in 4 different subgroups, at 4 different tables, under the guidance of 1 or 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 do not shift our own energy needs to another area. Agree or disagree?"
The responses were as follows:

Table 1

• Agreed.
• Agreed, but solar energy must (can) be stored; hydrogen economy.
• Agree, self-regulate; solar panels and be more energy conscious.
• Agree, self-regulate, solar panels, wind power, and be more energy conscious.
• Agreed, and there is plenty of room for that in Bredevoort as well.
• Agreed, but no large-scale solar parks etc.; better use every spot first.
• Agreed, but not everything has to be electric; a more frugal lifestyle is not a bad thing; and also build sustainable homes.
• Agree, we should look for several smaller options; for example, central parking lot covered with solar panels.
• Disagree. By sharing with areas balance supply and demand.
• Rural areas can generate energy themselves; more difficult for towns and cities; hope for new technology; and reward people for lower energy use.
• Government policy needs less swag; hold and adjust longer-term vision.

Table 2

• Disagree (mentioned 2x without further explanation).
• Disagree and also agree.
• Agreed, but in a different way; on the roof; and consider storage.
• Disagree, because other areas are sometimes more suitable.
• Disagree, there are areas where it is easier and cheaper to generate energy.
• Agreed, use technology!

Table 3

• Disagree, in cities many rooftops are available for generating energy; do make people more aware of their own consumption; due to solar parks we do not get the opportunity ourselves.
• Disagree, this issue is too big for Bredevoort alone; and farmland is needed for food supply (not for solar parks).
• Agree, we solve it ourselves; save even more, smaller windmills in-house (self-organize, cooperative).
• Agreed.
• Agree, make the opportunities freer, allow more, help better.
• Agree, also take responsibility yourself; be creative; think in solutions; use solar and wind; do also provide storage etc. and positively encourage.
• Agreed, but no windmills and solar farms; small-scale, fitting into the landscape.
• Government/municipality should provide more stable policies; and why can't we supply to neighbor?

Table 4

• Disagree, regulate nationwide (nuclear, offshore wind, etc.).
• Disagree, provide focused direction at the national and provincial level; do be open to initiatives; do maintain aspirations for self-sufficiency.
• Disagree, we do not do it now; nuclear power plants in places where it is possible; and we want too fast, there are not enough storage systems yet, for example; look also at extension cords towards windmills in Germany.
• Disagree, because impossible; generate energy where it can and is most profitable; and in any case, do not sacrifice high-value agricultural land.
• Agreed, but where and in what place?
• Agreed, self-solving.
• Disagree, do not operate as separate islands; use appropriate sites and facilities (hydrogen? Nuclear?); do consume more consciously: the less, the better.
• Disagree, more appropriate elsewhere.
• Disagree, regulate nationwide; but agree with consuming less!
• Government/municipality must stop swerving policies and take tighter control; plus appeal to personal responsibility, plus financially support people who want to but cannot.

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 proposition presented on this line was as follows:
"Measures to prevent or counteract heat stress in the town of Bredevoort should in no way be at the expense of Bredevoort's protected townscape".
The responses were as follows:

Table 1

• Create more green parking lots.
• Parking is allowed at a distance (do groceries), plus combination is possible.
• More stones out (pointless paving), but especially gardens.
• Parking in the green, under trees.
• In favor of rooftops with solar panels, including in protected cityscape, air conditioners.
• Agreed.
• Trees and parking can also be combined; people want to park close to home.
• More greenery is desired, as well as a car-free center; parking as much as possible on the outskirts.
• More trees are not only good against heat, but also healthy; more important than parking and cityscape.
• Agreed, trees instead of parking lots.
• Agreed, parking can be found elsewhere, as Bredevoort is only very small.
• Agree, trees instead of parking lots; only residents should be able to park close to their homes.
• Agree and disagree. Find middle ground, for example by removing some paving, including in gardens.
• Agree, make parking spaces along the edges, then the streets can have more trees.
• Disagree, rearrange streets.
• Agreed, but then good parking is needed at the edge and preferably under trees as well.
• Disagree, more trees in town, parking lots please outside the core, and please with a canopy with solar panels.
• Disagree, it can be done while preserving townscape; greening streets.

Table 2

• Trees, shrubs, fountain.
• Agreed, more greenery, but not at the expense of.
• Agree, core is too small for heat stress.
• Disagree, depending on the measures; green is fine.
• Disagree, just plant trees, green facades, green roofs.
• Disagree, we don't live in the past.

Table 3

• Disagree, if by trees/greenery the livability is to be improved that is OK, but if a tree becomes dangerous: do cut down (with replanting).
• Disagree, it can and should be greener.
• Disagree, it does not have to be a bad thing to modify the core a bit; a little more greenery is quite possible.
• Disagree, protected townscape need not be affected by measures; open paving, greenery; sewer infiltration, stormwater back to soil, WADIs, replanting requirement etc.
• Agree, it should be in harmony; more greenery in the core is fine in harmony with the townscape.
• Disagree, protecting the townscape is important, but not at any cost; it's okay to have more greenery at the expense of bricks.
• In my opinion, there is no contradiction between measures (such as more trees) and the townscape; Bredevoort used to be greener than now; but drought is a big challenge!

Table 4

• Generate where the efficiency is highest.
• Self-sufficiency not an end in itself; macro view.
• No NIMBY behavior, so definitely take responsibility yourself.
• Also looking at nuclear power etc.
• Doesn't necessarily have to be on its own land, can also be with participation in offshore wind turbines.
• Yield of offshore wind turbines many times higher than wind turbines in Aalten.
• No sacrificing agricultural land, also because technology will be much more advanced by 2040.
• We want too fast and need to take more time.
• Also bringing down our consumption.

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 toward the elderly as much as possible, so that they can stay where they live for as long as possible (for example, by making house splitting easier, generational yards, arranging good transportation et cetera)."
The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• B, in the hamlets and neighborhoods themselves; commit to naoberschap 2.0.
• B, commitment to informal care, volunteer help; looking out for each other.
• Looking out for each other; naoberschap; but setting up basic services: community center, vending machine, hand and foot (garbage, groceries, snow removal, etc.).
• B, growing old in their own environment, with good mix of young and old.
• B (mentioned 2x without further explanation).
• B for Bredevoort, A for complex care.
• A, provide small senior housing near amenities; more entitlement, less loneliness, more socialization.
• B, provide basic facilities in the core, such as a family doctor, but also a care hotel or something similar, plus host/facilitate digital meeting platform, for digital contact with others, but also for support.
• B, I would like to continue to live in my birthplace (farm); technology is rapidly increasing to allow me to live outside longer, with care.
• B, small farms/generational yards with several generations together; does not necessarily have to be family. Older people can then also lend a helping hand to young families, etc. and vice versa, young people can look after older people.
• B, technology makes more and more possible, even remotely, also for the elderly and self-reliance.
• Doubt between A and B; technology makes more and more possible (B), but if much care is needed, then to the core/facilities (A).
• Support as long as possible in one's own environment, but that will not always be possible, therefore also provide good facilities in the core.
• Health campaigns also important; good nutrition, staying vital, exercise, prevention.

Table 2

• A and B, keep healthy mix, but cluster; municipality should facilitate and people should look out for each other.
• Realistically: A, but desirable B.
• B, looking out for neighbors; congregation can help.
• B, bring care to the elderly as much as possible; all if not possible: courtyards, where each person lives independently but helps each other.
• B, when I am old myself, it would be nice if my children/neighbors help me.
• B, but ensuring a good ratio (i.e. also providing facilities for the elderly who cannot manage for themselves).
• B; many elderly like to continue to live at home; move (to care facilities etc.) only if there is no other way, no choice; but continue to bring to elderly as long as possible, also for the good mix of young and old.
• A and B; self-sufficient for as long as possible would be nice, but not everyone is self-sufficient.
• B, self-reliance for as long as possible is preferred, but A: there must remain provisions for when things really can no longer be done.

Table 3

• B, the elderly in courtyards/facilities together, but in the villages/neighborhoods and not all centrally located in large retirement homes; commit to informal care and naoberschap.
• A and B: concentrate expensive facilities in the larger cores, but in addition look out for each other more, cooperate better and perhaps in the hamlets a little more residential communities?
• A and B, try to help as long as possible in their own environment, but if it can no longer be done, there must be facilities.
• B, young and old are willing to help each other and is also good for livability.
• Combi of A and B: combine elderly with young people on residential islands/courtyards; kind of informal care; keeps the area lively and social, and counters loneliness; but where necessary be able to take them to facilities elsewhere.
• A and B, mixed courtyards with young and old, helping each other; lightly centralize dependents and if it is no longer sustainable: centralized facilities.
• B, but provide basic services in the village (GP, dentist, etc.).

Table 4

• Customization; combination of A and B.
• Much more possible in 2040 for B (robots, remote care, self-driving cars, etc.).
• Care will decline, so more clustering anyway.
• Continue to bring facilities to seniors as long as possible, and only if there is no other way: bring seniors to facilities.
• And the one and the other.
• Bringing amenities to the elderly as long as we can.
• As long as it is reasonable and one wants to continue to live, it should be possible.
• Transplant old trees as little as possible, but partly central care will have to be organized.
• Government/municipality must seriously curb bureaucracy so that family caregivers and caregivers have more time for work instead of administration.
• A, for affordable care, social contact among the elderly, a freer market for abandoned housing; do continue to focus on informal care and naobility!
• Government/municipality should support initiatives such as residential communities, setting up care units as a group, etc.

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 answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Why link employment and livability? Livability is often at odds with activity.
• First fill current vacancy with activity from Bredevoort.
• Create a good basis for healthy nature, with wider wooded banks and more woodland; businesses should co-invest in this, but in good consultation with local people.
• Beware of monoculture; retain some small scale; do continue to provide development opportunities for some degree of growth; but be consistent with Bredevoort's core values.
• There are many empty buildings in the countryside, so they still provide opportunities for new business.
• A good balance must be maintained between business, tourism and traffic etc.
• Agree, is important to keep a vital village.
• Agreed, the economy must keep running; a community cannot live on peace and quiet.
• Agree, because activity is and will continue to be needed; but first make better use of vacant space, etc.; do not immediately sacrifice new space.
• Disagree, tourists are spreading well over this area, this need not cause a nuisance; livability and fun/happiness should remain at the top.
• Agreed, activity is needed to remain a vital community; future generations must also be able to move forward; however, a good balance must be maintained with rest and safety.
• Once, employment, bustle, vibrancy.
• Disagree, provided it is not large scale in the outlying area, and if it is for high quality social added value.
• Disagree, question is whether livability and safety will not be put under pressure.
• Government/municipality must develop vision (see Future Vision of Bredevoort).
• Taking initiatives, joining forces.
• Government/municipality should promote customization, think along with them how something can be done.

Table 2

• Agree, economic growth is needed, but appropriate in the outlying area and no more than 2 to 3 employees; plus agriculture should stay.
• Agreed, and businesses cost space.
• Agree, activity is needed; do guard balance.
• Agree, maintain facilities; nuance is important; population is growing, the rest must keep up, either relatively.
• Disagree, employment does not equal livability; moreover, there is a limit to economic growth.
• Agreed, but then it has to add something.
• Agreed, business activity is needed, but no heavy industry in our landscape; and preserve agricultural businesses!
• Disagree, always accommodate/structure; should never be at the expense of safety.
• Agree, but does depend on what activity; tourism for example does to allow people to enjoy the peace and quiet and space.

Table 3

• Agreed, but activity preferably clustering.
• Agree, is good for the economy; has a temporary nature if it is an event; increases livability; and safety is controllable.
• Agree, but appropriate to scale and landscape; keep small scale in Bredevoort, also for peace and quiet.
• Disagree, the statement assumes that more business is good for employment and livability, but that is not true; the economy needs and is going to change; more circularity, more robots etc.
• Agree, because activity is important for livability.
• Agree, tourism is growing and that is important for a vital Bredevoort, also economically; create conditions for this to take place.

Table 4

• Tranquility and bustle must be balanced, but activity is important, also for livability.
• Not tourism is the problem, but lack of hiking and biking trails to manage tourism in desired directions and reduce pressure on fragile nature (because now they choose their own trails).
• Don't open up every acre for tourism; create restclaves as well.
• Rest and bustle in balance; for livability, tourism and business remain important, also to retain youth; but rest, space and safety are also important.
• Business remains important for livability, but appropriate to its scale and landscape.

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 landscape investments should be made first.

The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Agreed, nitrogen is a big problem; we are experiencing insect deprivation, partly due to use of poison.
• Agree, but then give farmers a role in desired landscape management and increasing biodiversity.
• Agree (mentioned 5x without further explanation).
• Agree, greening own yard diversely; maintain projects together such as Fortress Park, food forest, herb garden and walking and biking trails.
• Disagree, much maintenance of the landscape is work by and for farmers; however, there are fewer and fewer farmers and that comes at the expense of that maintenance; and we don't need it from parties like the Forestry Commission.
• Agree, with especially more greenery and trees.
• Agree, wider wooded banks, more forest and more jobs and financial support for farmers for maintenance of nature; politicians and citizens should help farmers.
• Agree, as a municipality map per area how it was; include residents; have owners (farmers) through compensation (structural) help maintain the landscape.

Table 2

• Agreed, but effective and tested accordingly; for example, mandatory planting of trees in new construction.
• Agreed and definitely adding new elements as well.
• Agreed, if our plan is honored by the municipality, we are already going to do this.
• Once, planting, afforestation, heathland, as little poison as possible.
• Agree, and encourage residents to do more greening themselves as well.
• Agreed, but how real is that, looking at ownership ratios; also requires a lot of money and maintenance; municipality/government should support that.
• Agreed.
• Agree, less petrification; better protect, green up, provide more shade areas etc.
• Agree, municipality can encourage by advising and possibly with subsidies; but residents can also take their own initiatives to address their own garden/environment.

Table 3

• Conservation of water/water system.
• Adapt planting to climate.
• Making streams meander.
• Giving money from Forestry Commission to farmers; is better for wooded banks and biodiversity; Forestry Commission is creating so-called "new nature," but no animal wants to sit there.
• Replace ryegrass etc. with herbaceous mixtures etc. (better for the cow's rumen, more yield with fewer and better resources).
• Diversity in fauna.
• Farmers are investing in new techniques.
• Less grass, more other greenery in the city; grass is too easy, path of least resistance
• Agro-forestry, circular, network building.
• Don't make investments that yield little, but landscape definitely needs maintenance.
• Water management essential.
• Much of landscape management is still in the hands of farmers; therefore, encourage and facilitate agriculture, for example, to ensure more biodiversity.
• Government/municipality should provide knowledge about opportunities and schemes; and advise residents and farmers.

Table 4

• Did not get around to it

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.