Dale

Introduction

This is the report of the first round of conversations about the environmental vision in Dale subarea. A total of about 30 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by 5 employees of the municipality of Aalten. The participants gave permission in advance to take photos and to use them for the report and placement on the website of municipality Aalten for the Environmental Vision.

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 purpose of this first conversation?

On January 1, 2024, the Environment Act came into force nationwide. Municipalities must prepare a new environmental vision that meets the requirements of the Environment Act within three years of this date.

One such requirement is that governments must work in a more area-oriented way. Another requirement is that the new environmental vision be drafted together with stakeholders (and thus residents). The municipal council has the final say.

In the period from September to March 2025, the Municipality of Aalten is conducting area-specific discussions about the new environmental vision. A total of twelve subareas have been distinguished in Aalten for this purpose. Three talks will be held per subarea. 

Visit www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie for more information. You can find all the pieces (photos report, explanatory presentation) by sub-area here.

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: Dale) unique, different from other areas, and what points of interest it has 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 for each section one the outcomes of this first conversation. Photos were also taken of these outcomes on the evening itself. You can find them at www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie under the button "calendar, agendas and reports". 

Component 1: About the subarea itself 

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

Table 1:

• Rest (4x mentioned).
• Naoberschap (mentioned 5x).
• Tolerance.
• Goor.
• Nature (4x mentioned).
• Livability (mentioned twice).
• Culture.
• Space (4x mentioned).
• Spatial area.
• Beautiful coulisse landscape (mentioned twice), with alternation of forest and nature.
• Landscape/natural.
• Landscape/agricultural value (mentioned twice).
• Beautiful green surroundings.
• Sparsely populated.
• Social (Orange Society).
• Community is close; can be close.
• Togetherness/involvement.
• Space for agriculture.
• Safe in terms of neighbors.
• No core.

Areas of concern for Dale's core qualities toward the future include:

• Traffic safety at certain points (mentioned twice).
• Traffic Safety Aladna Road.
• Speeding on the Vellegendijk.
• Accessibility (connection).
• Water.
• Land consolidation has been at the expense of scenic value; bring back landscape elements (wooded banks, etc.).
• Decision-making on certain issues (windmills).
• No expansion in Dale with wind turbines (not all in Dale) (mentioned twice).
• Goor is beautiful, but could be better: More excavations for water, more plantings, more trees.
• More bike paths, more bridle paths, makes it more attractive.
• No opportunities for housing development.
• Expanding energy transition, wind turbines, etc.
• EOS installation in agricultural area.
• Sports facility.
• Public transportation.
• Energy production.
• Prevent industrialization (belongs in industrial parks).

Table 2:

• Togetherness (3x mentioned).
• Little crime.
• Variety of activity, nature and housing.
• Nature/landscape (4x mentioned).
• Icon Landscape.
• High-low esses, hollow roads, elevation changes (mentioned twice).
• Community space/building/neighborhood house.
• Beautiful surroundings.
• Good facilities.

Areas of concern for Dale's core qualities toward the future include:

• Landscape preservation.

Table 3:

• Green environment (mentioned twice).
• Rural character, rural living.
• Beautiful residential location, beautiful surroundings.
• Coulis Landscape.
• Agricultural area.
• Association life.
• Space and tranquility (3x mentioned).
• Nature (5x mentioned).
• Mix of nature, agriculture, recreation and leisure (mentioned twice).
• Living, working and recreation a short distance away.
• Proximity to natural areas (Vennebulten, Goor, creek).
• Presence of wooded banks.
• The stream.
• Sand roads (mentioned twice).
• Possibility of hiking.
• Safety.
• Bicycle facility (mentioned 2x).
• 't Romienendal, social, neighborhood building (4x mentioned).
• Neighborhood feeling.
• Naoberschap.
• Togetherness.
• Wanting to tackle together.

Areas of concern for Dale's core qualities toward the future include:

• Traffic safety could be better (mentioned twice).
• Driving hard on small roads.
• Unsafe crossing at traffic circles and water tower.
• Aladnaweg and Butter Dike.
• Aladna road unsafe (mentioned twice).
• Safety transition ring road (mentioned twice).
• N318 increasingly busy.
• Road maintenance, shortcuts.
• Mountain bike trails.
• Preserve dirt roads.
• Spraying as little poison as possible.
• Less monoculture (more grain, seeds, etc.).
• Conservation of nature and wooded banks (5x mentioned).
• Cut down diseased trees and replant.
• Rejuvenating Nature.
• Mowing roadsides.
• Landscape maintenance (because fewer farmers) plus its funding.
• Greater diversity in trees.
• Not too many campgrounds (but farm campgrounds no problem).
• Drug dealing and dumping (mentioned twice).
• The wolf (mentioned twice).
• Height of wind turbines (mentioned twice; no higher than now).
• Livability over time.
• Starter Homes.
• Agricultural sector survival/livelihood.
• Aging population (mentioned twice).
• Individualism, every man for himself.
• Rejuvenation of the neighborhood (mentioned twice).
• Make housing accessible to young people.
• How can we involve young people in the hamlet?
• State of maintenance of municipal greenery (and greenery is being uprooted and nothing planted in return).
• Amount of water.
• Water control by landowners.
• No additional windmills.
• Decline of agriculture.
• Waste dumping.
• Life and bustle in Dale.

Component 2: On the main topics toward the future.

Strand 2 asked for the topics (themes) in the living environment that participants felt were most important to Dale or to Aalten as a whole in the future. Participants 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. Climate Adaptation (4x).
2. Landscape quality and values (4x).
3. Spatial Planning (4x).
4. Residential construction and building (3x).
5. Nature and biodiversity (2x).
6. Energy supply and renewable energy (2x).

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

1. Agriculture (4x).
2. Landscape quality and values (4x).
3. Social cohesion and participation (4x).
4. Nature and biodiversity (4x).
5. Safety/Social Safety (2x).
6. Leisure Economy and Tourism (2x). 

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

1. Residential construction and building (4x).
2. Landscape quality and values (4x).
3. Basic social services (3x).
4. Livability and quality of life (2x).
5. Climate adaptation (2x)

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 Dale subarea, desired:

• Water management: Dale is low, causing flooding and drought relief; is landscape prepared for this?
• Take speed reduction measures on through roads.
• Traffic safety: speeding on several roads. With growth of immediate area: How to streamline?
• Road safety.
• Converting farmland to ...
• Measures to promote livability (mentioned twice).
• Preserve natural landscaping.
• Preservation of landscape character.
• Maintain diversity of landscape.
• Nature: Respect the area; Dale has beautiful nature, so be careful of it.
• Keeping area accessible with great respect for nature.
• Wonderful diversity in nature for everyone (human and animal) to enjoy (also good for the environment).
• Arming against natural disasters.
• More diversity in plantings.
• Resident/youth retention (housing, housing development).
• Homes for young and old.
• Retaining young people in the neighborhood.
• Housing.
• Residential splitting.
• Tiny houses and also for seniors.
• Senior center (also against loneliness).
• Spot for housing construction 70+.
• How can we live together? Mutual consultation forms (municipality/citizen).
• Moveability: Creating challenges to move.
• A livable environment.
• Climate adaptation: Regulation of wet and dry to the extent possible / collection of water in reservoirs.
• Collaboration with other hamlets.

 Specific to Dale subarea, undesirable:

• No (expansion of) industry (especially due to energy transition: wind turbines, EOS) (mentioned twice).
• Insecurity.
• No new windmills, batteries, etc. added (thought everyone at this table).
• No expansion/relocation of the wind farm.
• No solar collectors on farmland.

Table 2: 

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Bicycle facility from Varsseveld to Bredevoort v.v.
• Affordable housing for young adults.
• Red for red.
• More attention to cultural history.More greenery/nature.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable: 

• Nothing appointed.

Specific to Dale subarea, desired:

• Greater attention to cultural history.
• Ditto for scenic values.
• Ditto for nature and biodiversity.
• Conservation.
• Preservation of care.
• We are all getting older; taking good care of that too.
• Recreation.
• Aladna road traffic calmed (mentioned twice).
• Bike lane along Aladna road (mentioned twice).
• Road safety in general.
• More residential construction or residential subdivision (mentioned twice).
• Mantel care homes.
• Place for young people.
• Starter housing for young people.
• Red for red.
• 1-each thought.
• Less aging.
• Ensuring that association life is maintained (mentioned twice).

Specific to Dale subarea, undesirable:

• Sneak traffic increases.
• No solar fields and industry (mentioned twice).
• Windmills: not higher and larger (3x mentioned).
• No solar fields (3x mentioned).
• No mega-stalls (mentioned twice).
• No industry (mainly keep it as it is) (mentioned twice).

Table 3:

For Aalten as a whole, desired: 

• Nothing appointed. 

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable: 

• Nothing appointed. 

Specific to Dale subarea, desired:

• Bike lane along Aladna Road (4x mentioned).
• Possibility of adding tiny houses (mentioned twice).
• Starter housing for young people (mentioned twice).
• Residential splitting.
• More commitment to green.
• More drug control.
• Meandering stream instead of channelized.
• More organic farming.
• Conservation of scenic landscape.
• Neighborhood Assistance.
• Safe crossing for children on beltway.
• Starter housing for young people.
• Reuse existing buildings.
• Keep landscape as it is.
• Neighborhood House retained.
• Care cooperative Barlo-Dale.
• Making existing buildings habitable.
• Senior housing.
• Care facilities.

Specific to Dale subarea, undesirable:

• Wolves.
• Extremely tall wind turbines.
• Unsafe ring road crossings.

Date of second interview

The second discussion in and about subarea Dale will take place on Tuesday, November 26 and will again take place in 't Romienendal, 19.00-21.30 hrs (walk-in 18.45 hrs). Then we will discuss specific choices that have 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!

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 Dale. A total of about 30 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.

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.

• 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 3 different subgroups, at three different tables, under the guidance of 1 or more municipal staff members. 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?
Answers were as follows:

Table 1

• No divide and conquer (mentioned twice).
• RES idea must be off the table.
• Energy supply should be primarily regulated nationwide, where energy generation pays off best.
• Also look at nuclear power.
• Nationwide, think better about the best places for energy generation. Offshore wind, solar on rooftops, industrial buildings, covered parking lots, etc.
• Also work on energy storage (batteries etc.), and then not in the landscape, but in industrial sites etc.
• Especially looking at how we can generate our own energy without 'polluting' the landscape too much. So for example on roofs, placing small windmills. Also a national responsibility for energy supply.
• Everyone is responsible for energy supply. However, that does not mean that current supplies should be guaranteed. Perhaps other sources of energy that have not yet been developed.
• Dale must continue to take responsibility for its own energy supply.
• Please no NIMBY behavior! Passing off solves nothing. 
• Come up with your own initiatives before obligations are forced down our throats.
• Contribution is already made by Dale (see windmills).
• No fragmentation across the country.
• Grid congestion must be addressed. Infra properly regulated.
• Increased use of surplus energy (especially residential).
• Regulate nationwide and only at the house level if and to the extent possible. And take the landscape into account regardless.
• Also look at new developments (hydrogen etc.) and better use of already existing opportunities, such as generating energy from the Slinge Brook.
• Government should help, empower people and businesses to take the desired actions.

Table 2

• The goal should be for every household to become energy neutral. Every household should basically meet its energy needs.
• We can't solve this ourselves in Dale. It starts with saving energy, but insulating farms is not affordable.
• A lot of power is generated in the summer, but you can't store it. Batteries are too expensive.
• Power companies now charge hefty feed-in fees.
• There are no more subsidies for business investment in sustainability (park).
• What is needed are subsidies and opportunities to store energy.
• Obsolete solar panels are difficult to recycle.
• Batteries, heat pumps, storage.
• Continuity of public policy.

Table 3

• Disagree: only if it cannot be solved with panels etc., then try to become neutral yourself.
• Agreed: when the wind turbines in Dale are written off, then replace them with much bigger and higher ones.
• Partly agree: with solar panels and the rest, it should be able to be solved by the state.
• Agreed: own power supply, and if you use too much, then look at your own consumption.
• No nuclear power (that's saddling your grandchildren with our problem).
• Disagree: share equally.
• Disagree: nuclear power is the solution; no windmills, solar farms, etc.
• Panels, batteries, geothermal.
• By 2040 own storage, should be cost-effective.
• Let people share in proceeds from windmills, etc.

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 dikes, pumping dry, sprinkling etc."
Responses were as follows:

Table 1

• Not treated.

Table 2

• If you build new, build higher. 
• Provide flexible drainage so that water can leave quickly. 
• Make sure the soils can absorb enough water. 
• Ditches properly maintained. Portions of ditches are not well maintained, resulting in water not flowing through.
• Water retention and storage. Water storage for dry periods. Space is needed for that.
• Rain barrels at private homes.
• Just letting nature take its course. We are always trying to come up with solutions to problems we create ourselves.
• We waste too much energy. That is part of the cause of the climate problem.

Table 3

• Maintain current use for food security reasons.
• B, because otherwise we won't keep ourselves from eating.
• Dale cannot make up the difference.
• Build only on higher ground.
• Using common sense yourself (spraying in drought conditions).
• Not wanting too much.
• Water management, water system.
• Education.

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 (e.g. by making house splitting easier, generational inheritance, arranging good transportation et cetera)."
The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Keeping the elderly in their own environment for as long as possible.
• Small-scale residential groups in the neighborhoods combined with child care, etc.
• Do not impose obligations on the elderly. The word "must" is already wrong.
• Provide attractive "elderly hotels" in which the elderly enjoy living.
• Remain committed to self-reliance, but with a safety net for those who can no longer (manage) themselves. Also guard against loneliness.
• Bringing amenities to the elderly as much as possible.
• As long as possible in the place where you like to live and live, if you can.
• Look at living together on inheritance, with children or others, of the same age or not.
• Guard against loneliness. Otherwise still (be able to) move to a place with more people.
• Dale has no core and no center function for amenities. Dale will therefore have to (continue to) bring care to the elderly. So that is what needs to be invested in.
• Keep health care at good vitality in rural areas via housing split on own property etc. (informal care).
• Leave choice to elders themselves.
• Remain committed to self-reliance for as long as possible.
• It is expected that more and more farmers will quit and thus farms and farmyards will become available for housing splits, generational yards, etc. Accommodate both young and old in these.
• As much control as possible in the elderly's own hands.
• Split housing (and involve young people).
• Cluster forms, e.g. residential/care farms and yards.
• Community idea, mix of young and old (and the government should remove all rules that prevent this).
• Also focus more on digital opportunities and support.
• Living together in a place that suits you. Doesn't necessarily have to be in the core(s). Beware of loneliness, though.
• Letting people mostly choose for themselves, plus centralizing care, plus senior housing near amenities.
• Give the elderly their own choice, but ensure the possibility of flow, for example toward care hotels etc.

Table 2

• It is in itself a nice idea to be able to do something for others as a hamlet, but there must also be time for it.
• We have to take care of more ourselves, because in the future there won't be enough care staff.
• You would like your parents to get the care they deserve. Preferably in the neighborhood itself, but that's only possible up to a point.
• Madam who has been a nurse at Sensire has seen a lot of loneliness in elderly people in the outlying area (distressing situations). Family is willing to provide informal care, but the burden is often too great.
• Young people do not stay in Dale. As a result, the connection to the hamlet is gone. There is no longer a school in Dale. Young people do not know each other anymore. Meeting each other once a year during the Orange Festival is not enough for bonding.
• There are too few suitable homes for seniors with care needs to continue living in the hamlet.

Table 3

• B, bringing facilities to the elderly; together we are strong.
• As long as you can: stay at home, otherwise move to the village; care robots etc. are a stopgap measure.
• Move elderly people towards facilities as much as possible, otherwise it becomes unaffordable.
• Rather lifetime housing than tiny houses; and make this easier to achieve, so that the young can move on and the elderly can live in their own yards.
• Home care must be expanded.
• We have a care cooperative Barlo-Dale ourselves; expand it with support from the municipality.

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

• Not treated.

Table 2

• Not treated.

Table 3

• Agree, and free up agriculture and livestock in the outlying area.
• Agricultural businesses disappear; what do we want in their place?
• Business is important, but keeping livability in mind.
• Association life is also important.
• Disagree, because peace, space and safety are more important than activity.
• Agreed, but also livability for youth.
• Employment: do we want more of it? And if so, what kind of employment?
• Commit to business activity appropriate to the landscape.
• Activity as much as possible in existing buildings.
• Agree, because also important for livability, but then immediately take measures for peace and safety.
• Provide restrictions in environmental plan, plus restore strips, food forest etc.

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

• There are areas that need more attention than Dale.
• Create natural collection of water.
• Biodiversity adapting to changing climate, so planting towards future must be different.
• More trees, more diversity of plants and shrubs.
• Better response to climate change.
• Giving farmland from farmers who quit back to nature.
• Impose nature obligations in new construction projects.
• Dale National Park.
• Preventing economies of scale.
• Ban poison (mentioned twice). Help and educate farmers in this.
• Restoration of old landscape elements.
• Make waterways more natural (no straight deep ditches) (mentioned twice).
• Expand natural areas (see 't Goor and see Vennebulten).
• Also close areas to recreation. This includes water management (retention).
• The premise is that Dale is a beautiful area and it should stay that way.
•  Improve soil quality.
• No monoculture (corn, ryegrass, etc.).
• Use of healthy manure etc.
• Investing in water management/water system.
• Cutting down fewer trees.
• Government must provide a fairer playing field: Products from abroad have to meet far fewer requirements.

Table 2

• Not treated.

Table 3

• Better maintain walls, ditches et cetera.
• No mountain bikers with high beams, because that means no rest for the animals.
• No additional mountain bike trails.
• Create rest areas without horses and sports.
• Agree, but please in proportion.
• Agree, just not more hiking and biking trails, otherwise no peace in nature.
• There are plenty of hiking trails; even more comes at the expense of agriculture and cattle ranching.
• Do not use pesticides.
• Don't flush out medications, turn them in.
• Being more conscious on your own property.
• Collecting water for toilet, for example.
• Municipality must inform, motivate, facilitate.

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.