HAMPSHIRE’S most important wildlife sites are threatened by plans announced by Chancellor George Osborne, say two highly respected wildlife organisations.

The Chancellor is proposing to review the protection given to wildlife sites brought in by John Major’s government 17 years ago.

While the Government promised to be the greenest on record, the RSPB says ‘vital environmental legislation that protects the county’s most important sites is under attack’ while the Hampshire Wildlife Trust says the proposals threaten Hampshire’s chalk streams and it is beginning to ‘lose patience with the Government’.

In his statement the Chancellor bemoaned the burden of ‘endless social and environmental goals’ on industry and described the Habitats Regulations as a ‘ridiculous cost on British business’, claiming that they amounted to ‘gold plating’ on European legislation.

Defra is now set to carry out a review of the regulations.

Both organisations say that before the regulation came in many damaging developments were allowed to take place – especially in this region where development pressure is higher than almost anywhere else in Europe.

Sam Dawes, RSPB spokesman, said: “We thought those dark days were behind us, but clearly the chancellor believes that he can bring about a quick fix of the economy by allowing unrestrained growth to trample over our precious natural environment.

“This marks the biggest backward step in environmental and planning policy for a generation.”

Debbie Tann, of Hampshire Wildlife Trust, said: “The Government’s desperation to kick-start the economy seems to be clouding their judgement. “Economic growth should not be achieved at the cost of our vital natural life support systems. This short sighted outlook is totally at odds with earlier statements to be the greenest government ever.”

Andover MP and cabinet minister Sir George Young said: “I strongly support the aims of these Directives and want them to continue to be effective in protecting our most important and well-loved wildlife sites and species.

“The vast majority of development cases do successfully meet the Directives’ requirements but a small number raise particularly complex issues which give rise to unnecessary costs and delays – and that could undermine the reputation of the Directives and the valuable protection they provide.

“That is why my colleague, Caroline Spelman, is reviewing how well the Directives are being applied in England to ensure that we deal with any overly-bureaucratic or long, drawn out examples of implementation.”