Lintelo

Introduction

This is the report of the first round of conversations about the environmental vision in Lintelo subarea. 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, 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: Lintelo) 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 four different subgroups, at four different tables, under the guidance of a staff member from the municipality.

What were the outcomes of this initial conversation?

Below by section one the results of this initial conversation.

Component 1: About the subarea itself

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

Table 1:

• Surroundings, rural area.
• Farm landscape.
• Green environment.
• Cycling environment.
• Hiking/sand/walking/biking trails.
• Mill (mentioned twice).
• Safety, social control.
• Us knows us.
• Togetherness.
• Naoberschap (3x mentioned).
• Looking out for each other (3x mentioned).
• Kulturhus (mentioned 3x).
• School.
• Associations (mentioned twice).
• Activities Committee.
• Brooks. 

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

• Fragmentation of the outdoor area.
• Lesser state of trees.
• Traffic safety (including Halteweg/Varsseveldsestraatweg, Gendringseweg).
• Sidewalks for pedestrians.
• Public transportation.
• No charging stations. 

Table 2: 

• Space, large outdoor area (mentioned twice).
• Fields, pastures.
• Agriculture.
• Flat.
• Land consolidation area (3x mentioned).
• Lots of activity (agricultural).
• Central core with housing, Kulturhus and school.
• Windmill as recognition beacon.
• Major road/trail through Lintelo.
• School (mentioned twice).
• Kulturhus (mentioned twice).
• Association life (mentioned twice).
• Togetherness (mentioned twice).
• Naoberschap.
• Eye for each other (mentioned twice).
• Sober.
• Something for everyone. 

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

• Naoberschap is changing/diluting (mentioned twice).
• Biodiversity.
• Living in the countryside for 65+.
• Industry is advancing.
• Scattered more and more small farms and fewer and fewer agricultural farms.
• Environment. 

Table 3:

• Quality landscape.
• Green environment, coulisse landscape (mentioned twice).
• Rural area (mentioned twice).
• Agricultural landscape (i.e. retain agricultural entrepreneurs, also for landscape maintenance).
• Spatial.
• Historic farms.
• Triangle (mentioned twice).
• Mill (mentioned twice), visibility.
• Livable core.
• Kulturhus (4x mentioned).
• School (4x mentioned).
• Sports (halls).
• Naoberschap (mentioned twice).
• Neighborhood.
• Joint.
• Community involvement.
• Entrepreneurship, hands on.
• Thriving club life (3x mentioned).
• Schoef 's an.
• Activities for young and old.
• Orange celebrations.
• Looking out for each other.

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

• Livability.
• School.
• Growth of core/homes.

Table 4:

• Rural (3x mentioned).
• Village.
• Green.
• Agriculture (3x mentioned).
• Small scale.
• Landscape with farms and views.
• Plots not very large.
• Multiple generations.
• School (3x mentioned).
• Mill.
• Kulturhus (mentioned 3x).
• Naoberschap (mentioned twice).
• Us knows us.
• Togetherness (mentioned twice).
• Convivial (mentioned twice).
• Association life.
• Young and old.

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

• Lack of public transportation.
• More imports reduce social cohesion, putting pressure on livability.

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 Lintelo 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 were mentioned, in order):

1. Social cohesion and participation (5x).
2. Health, Care and Vitality (4x).
3. Livability and quality of life (3x).
4. Housing and construction (2x).

Table 2 (most often mentioned, in order):

1. Residential construction and building (5x).
2. Social cohesion and participation (2x).
3. Basic social services (2x).
4. Public space and green spaces (2x). 

Table 3 (most often mentioned, in order): 

1. Residential construction and building (6x).
2. Basic social services (4x).
3. Social cohesion and participation (2x).

Table 4 (most often mentioned, in order): 

1. Agriculture (4x).
2. Social cohesion and participation (4x).
3. Landscape quality and values (3x).
4. Livability and quality of life (2x).
5. Spatial Planning (2x).
6. Cultural Heritage (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:

• Crime and subversion in the outlying area.   

 Specific to Lintelo subarea, desired:

• Conservation of greenery/landscape.
• Preservation of landscape quality.
• Maintain open character, without restricting farmers with wings.
• Attention to landscaping (mentioned twice).
• Converting barns into small homes.
• Space for tiny houses.
• Promote flow.
• Transfer lifetime housing permanently to generations.
• Priority for young people in starter homes (basis for youth retention).
• Health.
• Exercise and sports (hall).
• Social, togetherness, looking out for each other.
• Youth center (we don't have), for bonding youth.
• Maintain basic facilities (school, Kulturhus, sports hall).
• Basic services are a must for livability and preservation and quality of life.
• Sports hall, sports clubs.
• Day care.
• Kulturhus should stay.
• Traffic safety (including Gendringseweg), agricultural traffic has different needs than bicycle/car traffic.
• Expand bike lanes (now too few) (mentioned twice).
• More hiking trails (clog trails and along ditches) (mentioned twice).
• Private small rooftop wind turbines?

Specifically for subarea Lintelo,undesirable:

• No solar parks, solar panels only on roofs.
• What if the farmers stop? What happens to the landscape then?
• Bicycle safety has no attention from the province (bottleneck including Halterweg / Varsseveldsestraatweg).

Table 2: 

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Nothing appointed.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable: 

• Nothing appointed. 

Specific to Lintelo subarea, desired:

• Conservation of nature/greenery (mentioned twice).
• Green/blue veining.
• Conservation of agriculture (mentioned twice).
• Expansion of field edges.
• Many farmers are 55 or older and don't have a successor, or are quitting; but then how do we keep the area livable? Now the solution is red for red ... (mentioned twice).
• Nature-inclusive agriculture.
• Country house on farm where several people can live, including young and old.
• Building new homes in yard (smaller) so that elderly can continue to live in yard.
• Also giving something back to the community.
• Strengthen the core with housing development.
• Take into account the mill biotope, including into the future.
• Residential development, with opportunities for informal care.
• Build housing on existing sites, or develop on existing farms.
• Homes in the future circular.
• Care homes may be broader: More generational yards (mixed, young and old), reduce age limit for the purpose of informal care homes (many restrictions at present; more sustainable than knarrenkot?).
• Older people do indicate a desire to live together, but initiatives are not yet in place.
• Mobility, infrastructure and road safety.
• Safety Gendringseweg, especially in built-up areas (30 km + enforcement).
• Safe crossing N318.
• Traffic safety: sidewalk in core for school children.
• More hiking trails/clogging trails (mentioned twice).
• Bike lanes (mentioned 2x). More bike lanes along through roads and Gendringseweg.
• More biodiversity.
• Increased focus on biodiversity restoration.
• Especially invest in creating herb-rich meadows and strips of wildflowers, for bees and butterflies.
• Water management (mentioned twice); is related to nature and land use.
• Social cohesion and participation.
• Newcomers actively participate and bring knowledge.
• Getting more buzz, such as through a multipurpose accommodation.
• Also attract entrepreneurs; more amenities.
• Basic social services.
• Home care: How are we going to manage that (long distance)?
• Neighborhood care in the hamlet.
• Good continued support for community centers and that the government continues to voice their importance and support them financially.
• Multipurpose building; space for associations, businesses/zPs, hospitality.
• Smaller green spaces and bird groves.
• Municipality should support initiatives; and like to be more flexible (also means the environment has to accept things).

Specific to Lintelo subarea, undesirable:

• No new natural areas (mentioned twice).
• No bans on heavy traffic on intermediate roads.

 Table 3:

For Aalten as a whole, desired: 

• Organic dairy cattle: Does municipality cooperate?

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable: 

• Nothing appointed. 

Specific to Lintelo subarea, desired:

• Landscape conservation (mentioned twice).
• New construction on the 't Veld side (mentioned twice), preferably starter homes.
• Senior housing serving young people, but also cheaper.
• Split farms.
• Sustainable building, timber construction.
• Strengthen/expand core.
• Differently facilitate business and farming: Help make transitions.
• Good living for farmers (because farmers take care of the landscape).
• Cow Tunnel Heurnseweg.
• 30 km/hour on Gendringseweg.
• Battery for energy storage, at an industrial site.

 Specific to Lintelo subarea, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

Table 4:  

For Aalten as a whole, desired: 

• Nothing appointed. 

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable: 

• Nothing appointed. 

Specific to Lintelo subarea, desired:

• Preserving the green landscape
• Traffic circle Halteweg / Varsseveldseweg
• Maintain core view (4x mentioned)
• Preventing fragmentation
• Preservation of village character
• Infill rather than expansion: utilize existing first.
• Affordable houses, not high-end (mentioned twice).
• Easing residential splitting and live-in housing.
• Preservation of the Kulturhus and the school (mentioned twice).
• Preservation of sports facility(s).
• Preserving social services.
• Preserving agriculture.
• Mow roadsides more often (Jacob's wort).

Specific to Lintelo subarea, undesirable:

• No additional nature.
• Innovations and smart villages.
• No wind turbines (mentioned twice).
• No solar panels on agricultural land (3x mentioned).
• No data centers.
• No fragmentation of housing development.

Date of second interview

The second discussion in and about subarea Lintelo will take place on Monday evening, November 18, and will again take place in the Kulturhus of Lintelo (19.00-21.30 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 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 Lintelo. 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.

For more information: see www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie. You can find all reports of all talks held (also in other sub-areas) 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 habitat 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 do not want more windmills and preferably no solar panel fields; on the other hand, energy demand is only increasing, insulation and solar on roofs alone do not provide enough, and we (nationwide) want to be energy-neutral by 2030 at the latest (i.e. generate as much energy as we consume ourselves). The proposition presented on this line was as follows:
"We do not shift our own energy needs to another area. Agree, or disagree?"
Responses were as follows:

Table 1

• Self-generate energy to a certain extent.
• We can solve it together, as a congregation.
• Disagree, we can't do it alone; batteries etc. can be done, but wind farms as much as possible at sea and on reservoirs, because can't be profitable in Aalten.
• Agree, because with so on roofs etc. we will get very far; storage is a problem though.
• Agree to some extent, but, for example, windmills do worse here than in open areas; but solve for themselves as much as possible.

Table 2

• Agree, correct premise; both in terms of cost-cutting and production; but nuisance (noise, cast shadow, etc.) remains the guiding principle; plus proper incorporation into the landscape.
• Disagree, look at energy supply more broadly; not by (small) region.
• In outlying area now still high-pressure gas lines, are dangerous, should have been eliminated by 2025.
• Everyone must consume less energy themselves; thus, solve for themselves.
• Insulate, preserve.
• Question cannot be separated from rural uses and opportunities; why not small solar fields? Definitely explore!
• Disagree, also look at other areas; but agree if we can mutually support each other in the need.
• Government/municipality should encourage and facilitate, including with subsidies.
• Government/municipality should not keep changing the rules during the competition.

Table 3

• Agree/disagree, in part still solar fields; plus still some wind turbines? Plus arrange storage.
• Disagree, tackle nationwide, think hydrogen etc.; do allow small wind turbines, plus generate biogas.
• Largely agree, do much more locally (solar farms, wind); make it more sustainable only partially and consume less,
• Disagree, regulate nationwide; also look at nuclear power etc.
• Disagree, regulate nationwide; Lintelo is too small for that; do more though without polluting the landscape with windmills etc.; more rooftop solar; and placing batteries on industrial sites,
• Agree, self responsible; mini windmills, solar panels, batteries,
• Agreed, but Aalten-wide; see what is possible on rooftops before sacrificing farmland; centralize windmills? And distribute them fairly, also nationwide,

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, adapting land use to what used to be grown will not do.
• A, agree.
• Is it necessary?
• Adjust to some extent; adjust drainage if possible; do keep irrigation possible, as important for grassland and thus dairy farmers.

Table 2

• 4x agree, 2x disagree.
• Area better landscaped; adjust ditches, restore wooded banks.
• Allow streams to meander more, higher water table, water storage.
• No immediate financial concerns from climate change yet.

Table 3

• A, adaptation is inevitable; water retention, groundwater table et al.
• A, adapting to climate.
• A, adapting is necessary, but responding to change.
• A, but keep it limited; minor modifications (ditch dams, underflow areas, etc.).
• Doing A as much as possible, in order to continue using B.
• A, well in our congregation as much as possible.
• A, because nature changes.

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 yards, arranging good transportation et cetera)."
The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• B, no forced removals; only if no longer possible: A.
• A, good amenities in the village; not too much clustering in the hamlets.
• A, expand existing facilities as well as generational yards and care in the outlying area
• B, because the elderly should have the opportunity to live at home as long as possible with facilities nearby; only if there are none, then to facilities in Aalten.
• A, agree, to some extent; B: also agree, to some extent; staying at home as long as possible is fine, people also stay vital longer; so as long as possible B and then A.

Table 2

• 6x preference for B.
• As long as possible B, longer vital.
• Only if it can no longer be done, or if professional care is needed, then to facilities elsewhere.
• Together in the area, engage in conversation about this (inspiration: Mariënvelde).
• Raise awareness and encourage/support volunteers.

Table 3

• B, remains own choice; but care also concentrate.
• B, with care facilities in the cores where care is available; possibly arrange transportation for the elderly.
• Individual choice remains important; A is starting point, B must be made anyway and possible.
• Personal choice must remain paramount; nursing homes and homes for the elderly must return; and allow informal care units outside.
• B, bring facilities to the elderly as much as possible, and only if it is no longer possible: transport the elderly to facilities elsewhere.
• Commitment is to remain in own home, provided: level of care; farm for "cohabitation"; individual choice/possibilities/family.
• B, care to the elderly, by facilitating informal care in the yard, neighborhood care not fragmenting, and the elderly must accept that care can no longer always be delivered at the desired time.

Issue of business activity in relation to peace and quiet

Economic activity is important for the quality of life, but economic activity (including tourism) is sometimes at the expense of the peace and quiet and the space that are so characteristic of the Achterhoek, among other places, and which many Aalten citizens also want to preserve. The proposition presented on this line was as follows:
"In order 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

• Employment is important, but not at the expense of peace and safety.
• Agree, because important for youth, but in moderation.
• Agree, business activity may be encouraged, but not at any cost; concentrate several small businesses together.
• Agreed, provided large businesses in business parks and no large-scale tourism.
• Agree, because business activity important for livability and amenities.
• Agreed, can go together just fine.
• Consuming less energy, self-responsible.

Table 2

• Depends on scale.
• Location-dependent.
• Business activity ensures that young people/starters stay here.
• Thinking on the scale of the Achterhoek, though.

Table 3

• Didn't get around to it.

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

• Agree, invest in nature facilities and landscape elements.
• Agreed, but do not exaggerate; it is not that extremely bad.
• Agree, but with caveats: preserve what is there through good maintenance; more is not necessarily needed; encourage small-scale projects at the farm level; where much small scale does give a higher cost price.
• Agree, because nature important for the future.
• Agree, prioritizing hiking trails and biodiversity.
• Agree, develop existing sites on discontinuing businesses.

Table 2

• 6x agree.
• Encourage good maintenance.
• Do not institute licensing requirements for everything.
• Look at things that used to be there, like wooded banks.
• Volunteers, working together in the area.
• Education both through parents and schools.
• Better revenue model / revenue-generating capacity for landowners for landscape and biodiversity restoration.

Table 3

• Agree (2x without explanation).
• Agreed, but how?
• Once, but gradually.
• Once, but not only because of agriculture.
• Agreed, but low maintenance.
• Agreed, common interest, therefore maintained together.

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.