Nuenen Municipal Council Rules on Appeal Regarding the Asylum Seekers' Center

On March 10, 2026, the municipal executive issued a decision on the objections regarding the temporary asylum seekers’ center (AZC). A total of 1,059 objections had been filed against the three environmental permits granted for the construction of the temporary AZC on Pastoorsmast. The Objections Committee of the Municipality of Nuenen and surroundings considered these objections during four public hearings. On February 10, 2026, the committee issued its recommendation to the municipal executive. The permit applicant (the COA) and all objectors were personally notified of the decision by letter dated March 12, 2026.

Objections

The council has heard the objections and has carefully considered them. Some objections led to amendments to the permit. However, there were also many questions, comments, and concerns regarding topics other than the permit application. We have taken those into account as well. Although they may not fit within this permit process, we can incorporate them into the further elaboration, practical implementation, or working agreements that we will soon establish with the COA. 

Below, we will discuss the key elements of the decision.

Admissibility

The objections filed by residents living less than 260 meters from the site have all been deemed admissible. Neither during the hearings nor by the committee were any special circumstances brought to light that would justify setting a distance greater than 260 meters in this case. The objections filed by residents living farther away have therefore been deemed inadmissible.

We understand that residents living farther away from the temporary asylum seekers’ center may feel as though they are stakeholders because their daily lives will intersect with those of the center’s residents. However, this does not automatically make them stakeholders in the legal sense in this zoning procedure. Anyone who has a sufficiently objective and current, direct, and personal interest is considered a stakeholder under the law. In determining this, factors such as distance from, visibility of, visual impact, and environmental effects (including odor, noise, light, vibration, emissions, and risk) of the activity authorized by the decision are taken into account. A subjective sense of involvement in a decision, no matter how strong that feeling may be, is not sufficient to constitute an interest directly affected by the decision. 

Improve the rationale/justification

The Appeals Committee has advised the Municipal Executive to provide a more detailed explanation of the decision in order to clarify it. Accordingly, the explanation of the decision has been improved or supplemented in the following areas:

Social security

The following requirements have been added to the environmental permit for the zoning procedure:

• The COA ensures that security is on duty 24/7.
• The reception center can be reached by phone 24 hours a day by anyone, including immediate neighbors and other residents. The phone number is widely publicized, such as on the COA and municipal websites.
• Two months prior to the authorized use, the COA must initiate a so-called Neighborhood Consultation. Once the temporary asylum seekers’ center becomes operational, the COA must organize this Neighborhood Consultation on a regular basis. The format and frequency of the consultation will be mutually agreed upon.
• The COA monitors compliance with the house rules at the facility and informs residents about rules of conduct and social etiquette in the Netherlands.
• Upon termination of the lease agreement, the site must be returned to the condition described in the memo titled “Future Use of the AZC Site on Pastoorsmast.” This means that the site will be landscaped as a forest, and therefore a significant number of trees will be planted.

In addition to other agreements, the points listed above are also already included in the administrative agreement that the municipality has entered into with the COA.

Choice of location 

Only if it is clear in advance that there are other, comparable locations within the municipality where significantly fewer objections are expected should the municipal executive reconsider the location. The preliminary relief judge has already indicated that this does not appear to be the case, and the objections committee concurs. However, it has requested a more detailed justification for the choice of location. In particular, it has asked why other locations—namely Collse Hoeve and De Pinckart—are not more suitable:

“De Pinckart” is less suitable as a location for the temporary asylum seekers’ center because:

• the site is closer to existing homes; 

• the location is situated in an industrial park (which could affect business operations and limit the availability of scarce industrial land); 

• the site is located near an LPG filling station (which poses higher risks in terms of external safety);

• the expected investment costs are higher; 

• the ownership situation makes it harder to maintain control over the temporary asylum seekers' center. 

“Collse Hoeve” is less suitable as a location for the temporary asylum seekers’ center because:

• the location is a long way from amenities; 

• the location is directly adjacent to an industrial park;

• there are no sidewalks, and it would be difficult to install them there;

• the ownership situation makes it harder to maintain control over the temporary asylum seekers' center. 

Sound

The environmental permit for the zoning procedure now explicitly states that a study of the facade’s characteristic sound insulation must be conducted before the residential buildings are put into use.

Urban development

During the objection proceedings, the question was raised as to whether the construction of an asylum seekers’ center should be considered an urban development project. This would have implications for the permitting process to be followed. The Objections Committee advises the municipal executive to provide a rationale for why this would not constitute an urban development project. 

The Board’s reasoning is as follows: 

This is a temporary arrangement lasting up to 10 years. Once the buildings have been removed, the site will be converted into a nature area. Ultimately, there will be more nature than there is now.

The establishment of the temporary asylum seekers’ center will also have little impact on the factors assessed in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); this project remains well below the permitted standards. Because the site is already in use for various purposes (dog park, event venue), its natural value is low. The site where the temporary asylum center will be built is surrounded by forest. As a result, the buildings will be largely hidden from view. They will only be visible from the front. Furthermore, there are various other structures in the vicinity, such as the hospice, soccer fields, the skate park, commercial buildings, and the municipal yard. The temporary asylum seekers’ center will have minimal impact on traffic, as asylum seekers do not have access to cars and will primarily travel by bicycle, on foot, or via public transportation. 

In short: the visual impact of the temporary asylum seekers' center is limited.

Information

The text of the decision, the Appeals Committee’s recommendation, and the reports from the committee’s hearings are available on our website: www.nuenen.nl/opvanglocatieCOA. You will also find all other information about the AZC there.

Appeal?

You now have six weeks to file an appeal. The suspension of the operating permit (imposed by the judge in preliminary relief proceedings) will expire six weeks after this decision on the appeal.