IJzerlo

Introduction

This is the report of the first round of talks on the environmental vision in IJzerlo subarea. A total of about 20 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by 4 employees of the municipality of Aalten. The participants gave permission in advance to take pictures 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 of those requirements 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: IJzerlo) 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 two different groups, at two different tables, under the guidance of two city staff members.

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:

Table 1:

• Naoberschap (mentioned 3x), social cohesion (mentioned 2x).
• Togetherness.
• Confidence.
• Open minded.
• Everyone welcome.
• Openness toward persons from outside IJzerlo.
• Activity (3x mentioned).
• Agriculture.
• Ash landscape.
• Agricultural.
• Safety.
• Fun summer party.
• Social cohesion, associational life.
• Countryside, agriculture, flower species.
• Going together for the Village Hall.
• Orange Festival.
• School (3x mentioned).
• Active association life.
• Knowing each other, building something together.
• Something to do for different ages.
• Summer festival, school.
• Staying connected to IJzerlo, always coming back.
• Everyone is welcome, and even better if you actively participate.
• Showing commitment to hamlet.
• Elementary school, Dorpshuus.
• Approachability of the municipality of Aalten (positive). 

Points of interest for IJzerlo's core qualities toward the future were mentioned as:

• Social cohesion.
• Amenities (mentioned twice, school, Dorpshuus).
• Sufficient housing. 

 Table 2:

• Typical landscape, open ash landscape.
• Scenic landscape with lots of nature.
• Ash landscape.
• Border area with Germany.
• Companies with international allure.
• Friendly people.
• Scattered activities.
•  Diversity of people: young, old, religion, poor, rich.
• High tolerance.
• Many native residents, increase in immigrant residents.
• Live and let live.
• It is my home.
• Agricultural hamlet.
• Active hamlet, with lots of cohesion.
• Support public interest, volunteers.
• Agricultural area with scattered farms (mentioned twice).
• Much is accomplished together through collaboration and the pooling of ideas.
• Naoberschap, but elsewhere in the Achterhoek as well.
• Hiking trails on farmers' "own" land (but elsewhere in Achterhoek as well). 

Points of interest for IJzerlo's core qualities toward the future were mentioned as:

• Farm and country fair is under pressure (permits).

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. Agriculture (5x).
2. Economy and employment (5x).
3. Spatial Planning (4x).
4. Social cohesion and participation (3x).
5. Residential construction and building (3x). 

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

1. Agriculture (5x).
2. Nature/biodiversity (3x).
3. Soil use and soil quality (2x).
4. Mobility and Road Safety (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:

• Double track Winterswijk-Arnhem.

 For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

 Specific to IJzerlo subarea, desired:

• Better accessibility by public transportation, etc.
• Housing.
• Amenities.
• Better flow in the housing market.
• Safe traffic.
• Making it attractive to young people (housing, social opportunities)
• Activity.
• New houses near the core; large(er) houses with ability to split/share.
• Accessibility and safety of bicycle routes for children towards Aalten.
• Keep verges low at obscure and therefore (potentially) dangerous points.
• Solar panels on rooftops.
• Good ability to retain/regulate water (contact with water board).
• Better housing flow, including for the elderly (mentioned twice).
• Good balance between building and preserving nature and agriculture.
• Housing opportunities core IJzerlo.
• Stimulating activity.
• Residential splitting.
• No windmills, solar panels only on rooftops.
• Starter homes + demolition meters split.
• Encourage entrepreneurial freedom.
• Control Jacob's wort (is toxic to livestock).
• In 10 years, enough freedom for all types of activities.

Specific to IJzerlo subarea, undesirable:

• Too much horizon pollution.
• Too many and oppressive regulations.
• No solar panels (fields) on farmland.
• No (new) Natura 2000 areas.
• Closing the elementary school (mentioned 3x).
• Building overpriced houses.
• No new natural areas (mentioned twice).
• Do not sacrifice farmland to solar panels; fill roofs first (mentioned twice).

Table 2: 

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• More biodiversity (not many oaks now, for example; too much monoculture, throughout Aalten).
• Extending the A15 provides a better and more attractive living and working environment.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Few jobs (and also (too) many of the same kind); young people are leaving as a result.
• Strong border line between Germany and Aalten. Things are not always communicated.

Specific to IJzerlo subarea, desired:

• Road Safety. Example: Gendringseweg. Watching where youth ride bikes.
• Bringing citizens and farmers together. 
• New housing development.
• Farms where you can buy goods.
• Joint vegetable garden(s).
• Archaeological survey for new developments, such as site of old mill.
• Mobility/traffic safety: Municipality should be/be more accommodating to initiatives to make the environment safer.
• Biodiversity, but what compensation is there in return?
• Promote small-scale agriculture.
• Sustaining nature. Can always do more.
• Small-scale ditch structure, in consultation with farmers.
• Clustering the elderly, including in connection with care.
• Unmanned supermarket.
• Neighborhood grocery store for homegrown products in area.
• Space for wooded banks and return of water courses.
• Maintain lifetime housing, not temporary.
• Biodiversity, revenue model, long-term, compensation.
• Making events across borders more widely known.
• More employment opportunities with Germany.
• Accessibility/mobility to (healthcare) facilities.
• Consistent policies for farmers.
• Agriculture is iconic, farmers must keep opportunities.
• Smaller farmers should be given more opportunity.
• Mobility: bus stop in IJzerlo (mentioned twice).
• Traffic safety: crosswalk to playground.
• Cycling along agricultural roads must be safer; large agricultural machines are life-threatening.
• Tourist bike routes.

Specific to IJzerlo subarea, undesirable:

• Sneak traffic increases. 
• Buffer zones keep farmers from constructing waterways.
• New housing near old farms does not fit.
• There are no bus connections in IJzerlo.
• Electrocar drives by, but is unknown to many.
• Call bus is expensive for young people.
• Unsafe intersections (don't see them).
• Decline due to land consolidation and removal of wooded banks.
• Too little water during dry periods, but too much in wet periods.
• Housing shortage (finally building plan).
• Not enough housing for young people.
• Elderly people by necessity continue to live in their big house. They want to stay in IJzerlo.
• Limited employment opportunities for young people.
• Fragmentation of housing.
• Don't build in old farmhouses with new construction.

Date of second interview

The second discussion in and about subarea IJzerlo is on Wednesday evening, November 20, 2024 and will again take place in the Dorpshuus in IJzerlo from 19.00-21.30 hrs (walk-in from 18.45 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!

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 IJzerlo. A total of about 20 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by 3 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:

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 3 different subgroups, at 3 different tables, under the guidance of a staff member 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

• Agree, do focus on prevention; i.e. use less energy; and look for promising alternatives (technology).
• Utilize as many opportunities as possible in own environment; solar panels also on land, but no windmills, and do fit in small-scale environment; in large spaces more space for windmills; plus technology advances; make batteries more sustainable.
• Agree/disagree, do take responsibility, a lot can still be done on roofs etc.; but also distribute fairly, a little bit everywhere.
• Arranging together with Germany; wanting to be self-sufficient: what you need yourself, also arrange yourself; with a preference for solar on roofs.
• Definitely take personal responsibility; solar panels and windmills not ideal, but there is nothing better yet; and windmills cannot be everywhere; solar as much as possible on rooftops; and also look at hydrogen.

Table 2

• Disagree, neighborhood battery: municipality; better grid: municipality; better power distribution; home automation.
• Agree, if possible; solar energy left over: sell nearby; convert manure to gas; use green gas.
• Agree, local energy plants, develop collectively; bio-digestion, solar panels, hydrogen (on a small scale?); but as an area definitely take own responsibility.
• Agreed, but fill up roofs first; no solar farms; small wind turbines, batteries etc. are a solution.
• Agreed, and prefer solar fields to wind turbines i.e. damage to health.
• Agreed, for now enough own energy, but power consumption in the future I think is still uncertain; will it become more? Technology is also changing; see hydrogen.
• Agree, self-regulate, possibly with battery storage, solar panels etc.
• Joint action; neighborhood batteries?
• Helping each other.
• Government/municipality: If it starts costing money (on feed-in) the plug goes off.

Table 3

• Once, we solve it ourselves.
• Disagree (without explanation).
• Agree (without explanation) and government should provide storage.
• Agreed, as far as possible.
• Contribute where it can, but it is not completely self-solving.
• Disagree, small-scale is possible, for example with solar panels, but wind turbines preferably at sea
• Everyone needs to become more sustainable, insulate, etc.
• Government/municipality must ensure continuity of policy.
• Government/municipality must look at solutions more holistically; for example, electric cars get subsidies, while pots for making homes more sustainable are empty.

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 draining, raising dikes, pumping dry, sprinkling etc."
The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Whenever possible: A, otherwise B.
• A (without explanation).
• A, adjust land use, but seek balance.
• A, adjust land use where necessary; stand for something!
• Stop growing lilies and other crops that require a lot of water.
• Retaining water as long as possible.
• Not just conservation, but restoration of nature.
• Much land not suitable for agriculture.

Table 2

• A, return to natural water system and local solutions; plus better agricultural use of critical parcels.
• A, possibly other crops; plus manage water well.
• B, land is scarce, giving away land is also giving away opportunities.
• A, adjust living pattern population; nature shows what is wrong; do not strictly apply regulations regarding harvest time, for example.
• B, you can't just move housing; crops also improve against extremes, capture water, retain it longer or not at all.
• A, housing on high ground; wet land not returned to nature, but kept for dry summers.
• B, land use is necessary for food supply; but channel/lock more consciously; plus leave regulations land/crop more freely.
• Adjust living and thinking patterns.

Table 3

• A is normally the automatic choice, but toward the future we cannot escape B due to population increase.

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 posed on this line was as follows: "A. Do we bring the elderly towards 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

• B, independent in society as long as possible; no large clusters of the elderly, as this leads to alienation from one's own environment.
• Preferred B, make own environment longer suitable, but a limit is approaching.
• A, seniors know that sooner or later they will have to move sometime; we don't have to do everything to make seniors comfortable in their old place; thus: senior housing near amenities.
• Depends on the situation; preference for B; make splitting homes, placing/creating assisted living, etc. easier.
• B, adapt care through technology; no mandatory moves.

Table 2

• B, if possible; support informal care, annex residential units, etc.
• B, social services should remain; possibly make splitting housing easier, also to give young people a chance to stay.
• B, provided social contacts remain; and A for those who want them.
• B, back to living together, not individually; and look at basic income, so that there is more time to be naobere; should naobership be paid for?
• B (without explanation).
• B, new technologies give new opportunities; giving the elderly the ability to stay in place or move out anyway.
• B, moving is not a standard option; removing persons from their familiar surroundings is not something one wants to do; but the cost is prohibitive.
• No commitments.
• Kind of make basic facility(s), more generational yards, assisted living, etc.
• Staying in current environment is preferred; being happy, having free choice.

Table 3

• As long as B can: B; but there is a limit.
• B as long as possible.
• B as long as you can.
• A (without explanation).
• A only on a voluntary basis, B ditto.
• B, I continue to function best in my own environment.
• B, older people should be able to choose where they go; it is nice that there are different ages living in the hamlet.
• Making one's own home life-proof(er).

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 job opportunities, 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

• Is not a topic in IJzerlo, not an issue.
• This doesn't really live here.
• In terms of tourism: is 1 million overnight stays a year a problem? Depends on how that is filled in.

Table 2

• Didn't get around to it.

Table 3

• No more tourism.

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 must 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

• Preserving importance and encouraging investment in biodiversity is better achieved through targeted land use and climate action.
• Investment in the landscape is needed to preserve it; adding elements and also adjusting agriculture and crop choices.
• Prioritize water management, flood prevention, etc.
• Not just conservation, but restoration of nature; take measures against over-fertilization, pollution and logging/mowing.
• Investing in the landscape; good stewardship; diversity.
• Government/municipality must provide more support, including financial support, because the government can want and care about all kinds of things, but who pays for it?
• Government/municipality must stop changing policies and regulations all the time.

Table 2

• Disagree, it is in fact already happening; think of herb-rich grasslands, farmers maintaining wooded banks etc.; letting people be free to do what they do.
• Agreed, but in consultation with the landscape managers (farmers), it must also give them something to gain; and step by step; and as for "nature-inclusive agriculture": there must be a living.
• Agree, less poison and fertilizer; plus scale down and use more natural systems; plus reduce restrictive regulations.
• Agreed, stimulating for those who want to do something, no strings attached.
• Disagree, keep as is; crops may be solution; plus wooded banks in logical places, with compensation.
• Agree, farmers in the area are already working on it through crop selection etc.; promoting small scale rather than large scale; and less restrictive regulations.
• Government/municipality should inform, encourage and facilitate, but not oblige.

Table 3

• Balance agriculture/landscape and biodiversity, but not at the expense of existing agriculture.
• Partly agree with statement, but not on all points; maintenance remains important.
• Agree (without explanation).
• Agree, preserve neat nature, trails; no degradation; no deterioration.
• Agree and disagree, we certainly need to restore biodiversity, but in conjunction with current businesses without losing everything and implementing it too black and white.
• Agree, preserving our landscape is important because that is also part of living outside; same goes for biodiversity.
• Preserve Essen landscape and ensure it remains recognizable; only where possible and not at the expense of existing farmland.
• Agree, if and to the extent affordable and feasible; seek combination function of water buffer and nature; appropriate to small-scale landscape.
• Government/municipality should encourage, including with subsidies, and provide a revenue model for farmers.
• Giving farmers more freedom to determine for themselves, take measures.

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.