The Heurne

Introduction

This is the report of the first round of conversations about the environmental vision in De Heurne subarea. A total of 10 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by 2 employees 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 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.

For more information visit www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie. 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: De Heurne) unique, different from other areas, and what points of attention therein are for the future; this in addition to the Village Development Plan of De Heurne, presented this spring;
2. a short conversation about topics (themes) in the living environment that the participants consider most important towards the future for their own subarea or for Aalten as a whole; again, this in addition to the Village Development Plan of De Heurne, presented this spring;
3. find a brief conversation about some important 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 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: 

• Green environment (6x mentioned).
• Small scale (3x mentioned).
• Varied landscape.
• Open agricultural area (after land consolidation).
• Good balance between size agricultural plots.
• Rural Outlying Area.
• Agriculture.
• Reasonably open landscape.
• Small core/residential area.
• For a small core: strong/many amenities, especially for children/families.
• Good balance between tranquility and bustle.
• Many basic amenities of its own.
• Basic services easily accessible (3x mentioned).
• Naoberschap (mentioned 5x).
• Togetherness (mentioned twice).
• Shared responsibility.
• Living and doing together.
• Volunteer (work) (mentioned twice).
• Looking out for each other, helping each other.
• Community spirit.
• With/by strengthening Heurns Belang togetherness increased.
• Good mix of young and old (young people are also returning to De Heurne).
• Livable area.
• Pens and chains (community, groups of friends).
• Alive/moving (mentioned 2x).
• Entrepreneurship.
• Many businesses, local, grounded and fit(d) into community.
• How the village is now (amenities, etc.) ensures that the population is and remains diverse.

 As points of interest for the core qualities of De Heurne into the future have been mentioned:

• Concerns about housing development (mentioned twice) (too incidental, starting too late, no proper planning, shrinkage due to shortages).
• Costs Uuthuuskes so high that residents can build up little financially.
• No turnaround for residents of Uuthuuskes (max 5 years?).
• The Residence stands/stays at too great a distance; disinterest (see Keuperweg).
• Senior citizen courts?

Component 2: On the main topics toward the future.

Strand 2 asked about topics (themes) in the living environment that the participants consider important aar the future (also) for De Heurne, in addition to what is/was already described in De Heurne's Village Development Plan.

It was requested that these additional important issues be ticked off a list of 24 environmental issues (ranging from noise, water, etc., to construction, infrastructure, agriculture and nature). Listed as additional important (relative to the DOP) were: 

1. housing and construction (5x mentioned).
2. energy supply and renewable energy (4x mentioned) combined with sustainability (2x mentioned).
3. mobility and road safety (3x mentioned).
4. social cohesion and participation (mentioned 3x) combined with livability and quality of life (mentioned 2x).
5. land use and soil quality (mentioned 3x) in combination with water management (mentioned 2x).
6. landscape quality and values (mentioned twice) in combination with public space and greenery (mentioned twice) and nature and biodiversity (mentioned once).
7. health, care and vitality (mentioned twice) in combination with exercise-friendly environment (mentioned twice).
8. climate adaptation (mentioned twice).
9. infrastructure (mentioned twice).

Part 3: What is and is not desirable towards the future
In Part 3 we briefly discussed a few points from Part 2, i.e. themes, supplementary to the Village Development Plan, that are considered important (also) for the future of De Heurne. In this context the following issues were still considered important:

• Housing development for starters/youth.
• Ensure that all new construction is immediately self-sufficient (including energy).
• Explore other options for energy supply as well.
• Joint energy supply/generation?
• Joint battery for De Heurne?
• No wind turbines (mentioned twice).
• No solar panels on agricultural land (mentioned twice).
• Water management is becoming increasingly important, but is primarily determined by landowners, not the water board.
• Concerns about biodiversity decline.
• Effects of climate change already visible; how to prepare for them?
• Maintain activities also for young people; essential for livability.
• School and cultural center important for livability.
• Maintaining basic services.

Date of second interview

The second discussion in and about subarea De Heurne will take place on Wednesday, December 4, and will again take place at Café Bruggink, in De Heurne (7:00-21:30 p.m., walk-in from 6:45 p.m.). 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 restrictions, 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 De Heurne. A total of about 30 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.

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:
  Energy supply
  Climate change
  Housing and care
  Activity in relation to peace and space
  Landscape, biodiversity, water quality
• Plenary wrap-up and look ahead to the sequel.

What were the outcomes of this second conversation?

The conversation about the (up to five) issues was conducted in De Heurne in different subgroups, at four different tables, under the guidance of an employee 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?
Answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Do it yourself, don't pass it off; solutions: put batteries/batteries down for (any) surplus solar and wind energy (so that we use self-generated energy as optimally as possible in De Heurne).
• Do it yourself; become aware of own consumption and peak load; be more mindful of nature (solar, wind).
• Making better use of roofs.
• Energy through water? What are the options?
• Do it yourself, don't shuffle off; ensure good mix of wind and solar, plus storage options (new technology).
• Don't do it yourself, regulate nationwide, where it is best.
• Do it ourselves; there are still plenty of roofs that don't have solar panels on them.
• De Heurne should want to be self-sufficient; build solar fields, provides less horizon pollution than windmills; plus allow private individuals to install windmills of max. 3 meters high (innovation).
• Do it yourself; shared facilities and facility sharing.
• At least make maximum contribution in own area, by using roofs much better for solar panels even more.
• Don't blame others; cut back yourself, use less energy; hold each other accountable.

Table 2

• Self-sufficiency not an end in itself.
• Agreed, you have to look for it in your own environment and want to provide it yourself.
• Self-sufficient including solar panels under which crops can be grown.
• Agreed, but first look at non- or less drastic measures such as solar on roofs, small wind turbines etc. plus good use of batteries etc.
• Agreed, but is this feasible for Aalten? I think for De Heurne certainly, with the space still available.
• Agreed, energy we consume also generate as much as possible ourselves, also using new techniques (hydrogen etc.), green panels (so they disturb the landscape less) et cetera.
• As a municipality certainly maximize its contribution, but certainly look nationwide; plus look closely at storage options.
• Municipality should especially/more inspire, show examples and opportunities, plus facilitate and subsidize (e.g. collective battery).

Table 3

• Too little time, didn't get around to it.

Table 4

• Solar panels fit in well.
• Disagree; be especially frugal, consume as little as possible, but not self-sufficient at all costs.
• Once, we solve it ourselves.
• Agree, self-regulate energy as much as possible, on roofs of barns, houses, businesses et cetera; but not everything can!
• Taking responsibility themselves as well, preferably without foreign space occupation.
• Disagree; regulate nationwide.
• Consideration of landscape.
• Getting spatial planning right.

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

• A, but do adapt to the possibilities available regarding agriculture.
• B, but learning to grow other crops.
• A, as far as realistic and feasible; trying to live as much as possible how nature intended for us; costly though, so lots of money needed for modifications.
• Agree with A, learn to live with natural conditions, be cautious of more compensation.
• B, because A is too costly in terms of time, money and effort.
• No construction on tall ash trees.
• Municipality needs to listen better to residents when it comes to maintenance (culverts, flow, water retention, storage, etc.).

Table 2

• Don't design/act on extremes, because one time it's about drought, the other time it's about flooding; sprinkling during drought doesn't have to be a problem as long as you store enough water in times of flooding.
• Adjust use; make room for water storage; and do not build in overflow area.
• A is too costly, I think, and what is feasible? What does that do to the environment? B would be more ideal, less invasive, less change, but is that a sustainable solution?
• A, especially in view of new projects, but preserving current history, culture, nature
• Adjust housing developments where necessary, both in terms of location and the homes themselves; also adjust water supply and drainage.
• Prefer B, but do take into account improvements regarding the climate; the Netherlands should not take too extreme action, do not exaggerate; we try to improve everything on a micro level, but elsewhere in the world they do not care.
• Basically: A: soil and water guiding new development; B for existing historic buildings (we should not lose the whole identity) and smart retention of water for later use.

Table 3

• Not treated.

Table 4

• A; don't build everywhere at any cost.
• See 't Broek: wet area, but still industry.
• Trees: 3 x 30 x 300 line.
• Do not tile gardens; water must be allowed to enter the ground.
• Planting trees.
• A; follow nature and not go against it at all costs.
• A; adapt to nature; don't build somewhere you know will be nothing.
• A; do not build in low-lying areas; preserve them for nature development.
• Approaching nature as closely as possible as a starting point.
• Adapt land use to nature.

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 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

• Combination of A and B; make sure young and old can stay together, with shared facilities.
• Make house splitting easier, then more people will live closer together, which is good for mutual help.
• Split housing should be easier (mentioned twice).
• Combination of A and B; provide amenities at the neighborhood level, e.g., in the form of mixed housing communities (4x mentioned).
• Combination of A and B; Knarrenhofjes, but also combined with young people.
• Realization of Knarren courtyards by the housing association.
• Combination of A and B; elderly as much as possible in own village/neighborhood, in central place (courtyard), together with young people; joint larger facility with kitchen, living room to cook together, play games, and look after each other.

Table 2

• themselves, only then clustered in small cores, and only last toward bringing facilities.
• Not taking people out of their environment.
• Living at home as long as possible and bringing care to people.
• Preventing loneliness by allowing more habitation in farmyards.
• Taking more care of each other (mentioned twice).
• Help (coach, guide) elders to make the right choice(s) for themselves (where there are also limits to self-reliance).
• Senior housing preferably in the small cores/neighborhoods themselves, concentrated, i.e. together, so that support can also be provided efficiently.
• Grants for adaptations and make them possible more quickly in terms of regulations.
• No coercion.
• In 2040, transportation of the elderly by self-driving vans to facilities, so they too can live longer in current places.
• B: promote vitality, organize good mobility facilities, village houses for support, facilities, meeting; elderly are part of the community; good mix of young and old is important; social network.
• Both, A and B, 50-50: Some elderly would like to go to some kind of retirement home, social, shopping and care nearby; but many elderly in the outlying area would like to stay in the outlying area, with or without informal care, possibly centrally located in the neighborhood and shared with others.
• Expand opportunities for informal care homes.
• Allowing the elderly to live independently for as long as possible, with opportunities for adaptations and thus subsidies.
• Relax opportunities for residential splitting, including time.
• In housing construction, allow housing for various age groups.
• Only move toward facilities in extreme necessity.

Table 3

• A; central, no solitude.
• As long as possible at home. At large cores also care housing, more together.
• More generational courtyards in the small cores/neighborhoods.
• Bringing amenities to the elderly as long and as much as possible (mentioned twice).
• Choice B: Think ahead locally with shared facilities for 70+; care is then easier to organize.
• Concentrate basic services in the major cores and accept that we must change.

Table 4

• B; allowing older and younger people to live together.
• B, but young and old together.
• No coercion, let them choose for themselves.
• Home customization seems ideal to me.
• People should be able to choose for themselves.
• Enabling customization.
• Bringing care to the home (if possible).
• Loneliness is mostly urban.
• Customization.
• B, but customization.
• Counter/care in 1 place.
• Reachable Care.
• 1 point of contact.
• Looking at human beings from the point of view of intention.

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

• Disagree; employment is important, appropriate to De Heurne (scale), but not more heavy traffic.
• Agreed.
• Disagree; for growth and jobs choose businesses that fit in and near De Heurne.
• Disagree; basis is tranquility; activity should not be at the expense of (traffic) safety; however, important to maintain current facilities; and employment should fit the character of De Heurne.
• Disagree; keep what is there, it does not need more and/or bigger; and if there is a need at all, then employment appropriate to livability.
• Encourage youth entrepreneurship; make space(s) available, and provide good digital connections/infrastructure.

Table 2

• Concentrate businesses primarily on existing business parks (3x mentioned).
• People live here precisely for the peace, space and safety, so disagree.
• Tension not an issue in De Heurne; both can still coexist just fine; moreover, tourism is important, also for De Heurne.
• Disagree; commit to outreach or small scale.
• Tourism can still be expanded; if necessary make rules for equestrians, cyclists, etc.
• Businesses in De Heurne precisely not together.
• Tourism is fine as it is.
• Give space to (small-scale) industry (appropriate to De Heurne) to maintain facilities and employment, but in balance, so not without limits; do continue to invest in routes, safety, etc.

Table 3

• Agree; necessary for vitality and economy.
• Disagree; it does not always have to be more; above all, make efficient use of existing space or upgrade it (combining functions).
• Disagree; preserve quiet outdoor area; peace and quiet are the reasons I live here.
• Agree; necessary for the livability of De Heurne; but tailored to location, and no fragmentation.
• Disagree; first see if there are sites that can be changed/remediated, plus like logical embedding of parcels.
• Activity is a broad term; rather less than more.
• Disagree; employment need not always necessarily be found in De Heurne; prefer to concentrate business activity on existing business parks; certainly should not be at the expense of nature.
• Agreed; without activity no future for De Heurne; rather activity in the Netherlands than in Asia and Africa.
• Activity however appropriate to the scale and character of De Heurne; plus commit to reuse and revitalization.
• Participation in this context does matter (communication and timeliness).

Table 4

• Only clean businesses, no smell.
• Utilize existing business parks first and as best as possible.
• Business must remain, but clean and safe.
• Agreed, but only clean companies.
• Only clean, quiet and safe businesses.
• Agree, provided: safe traffic, peace not disturbed (businesses should be able to work).
• Business activity as much as possible on existing business sites and as much as possible concentrated; landscape spared as long as possible, peace and quiet are also important.

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

• Agree; strong commitment to maintain native plants and animals, plus inhibit car use (promote walking and biking).
• Agree; should not become a polder; pollute machinery; municipality needed; do not reinvent wheel.
• Agreed, but what are we going to do about it? Municipality needed. Must plan with residents, and implement with residents; plus money needed from municipality.
• Agree, and even strengthen, because valuable landscape exists only in leaflets.
• Agree; strengthen/expand the current landscape; have conversations with landowners and also with the nature industry and agriculture; more woodlands, and preserve large solitary trees.
• The government must provide this (commitment and accessibility).
• Agree, and involve all target groups, including youth; practical education for youth among others; subsidies for certain fields/maintenance; and preserve Heurns Field.
• We need to invest in nature, industry and agriculture; plus boost agriculture for more biodiversity.
• Agree, and what can community De Heurne do itself? Provide volunteers for maintenance and planting of trees, etc. (example: church path working group; maintenance).
• Also make sure that maintenance and creation of nature is/can be a revenue model for agriculture.

Table 2

• Compensate farmers for maintenance and creation of nature.
• Protect flora and fauna.
• Better protect nature.
• Allowing sprawl in roadsides.
• Organic farming, less poison.
• Food forests.
• Increased use of herbaceous grass mixtures, etc.
• More hedgerows.
• Wooded banks and hedges back.
• Making space for good water management.
• Give vacant farmland back to nature.
• Invest in water quality, therefore less poison (agricultural) c, be able to regulate water status better, less nitrogen.
• More planting of flowers, shrubs, trees, which is conducive to wildlife (insects, birds).
• Above all, let nature take its course and don't mother it too much.
• Invest in landscape by: restoring trees/wooded banks (good for climate and biodiversity), routes/structures/network nature along roadsides and ditches (for biodiversity), water quality (less/no poisons, manure) and encouraging farmyards as green hubs.

Table 3

• Agree with need for better maintenance.
• Agree, is also promoting climate adaptation; more greenery, more water.
• Agree; biodiversity important for livability in the future.
• Municipality should facilitate woodlot projects, etc., as needed.
• Agreed, important to ensure future livability.
• Disagree: nature development by third parties, such as Natuurmonumenten, Staatsbosbeheer and others.
• Larger scale green plots, less fragmentation.
• Customized maintenance.
• Supervision of trading/trading of land.
• Good revenue model for landowners.
• Agree; restoration of landscape essential, more hedgerows, more variety, also in management and biodiversity.
• Agree; encourage more wooded banks, canals, etc.
• Not "creating" nature.
• Support farmers more, as they provide maintenance.
• Agreed; example: Linderdijk.
• Helping farmers.
• Construction by municipality.
• Maintenance by owners.
• Agreed: nature in general, flora and fauna, and anything that can come back again.
• Government should ban pesticides etc.
• Everyone investing more on their own land.
• Own behavior: consuming.
• Better define green structures (landscape elements, etc.) in the environmental plan.

Table 4

• Important: water quality; make places for water storage.
• Enlist volunteers for construction and maintenance of trails, etc. (and municipality needed for support).
• Subsidy for production, subsidy for landscape.
• Support olde karrespoor.
• Maintenance of trails and bike paths by municipality.
• Agree; grant aimed at construction and maintenance of ramparts, ash trees, etc.
• In agriculture, focus more on landscape rather than just (more) production.
• Agree: definitely invest in trails etc.; also invest more in maintenance (but by whom?).
• Municipality needs to invest more in and maintain bike lanes.
• More greenery in the outdoor area.
• Conservation is important (beautiful and healthy).
• See also village development plan of De Heurne: created plan together with Achterhoek tourism.
• Require planting plans and also enforce them.
• Maintain and better maintain trails, also (more) contribution municipality needed.

How to move forward?

After the second round of meetings we will describe all input (including policies of other governments, etc.) into 1 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.