IN his Journal interview last week Chris Dragonetti, chairman of the trustees of St Nicholas Hospital, Salisbury, ignores one of their important duties – that of care to their neighbours.

He says they are “dutybound to make the most of the hospital’s investment”, as he calls the meadow at Britford Lane, East Harnham, which they have offered for housing with the Earl of Radnor’s next-door meadow.

But, like the rest of us, these landowners have a duty to their neighbours and their proposals may well impair the city as an income-producing tourist attraction, cause added flood danger, and add traffic to already heavily-used city roads.

Mr Dragonetti said cynically: “We don’t own this land for the benefit of society. We are dutybound to make the most of our investment.”

The cynicism continued. Mr Dragonetti acknowledged he knew that a developer may not stick to the proposals for 40 per cent affordable housing, the only merit in the sale. But now we know this is just windowdressing: Mr Dragonetti wants to sell the land for any purpose.

The trustees say their duty is to maximise their assets. But is it?

This sounds like the current myth that everything should be sacrificed for the well-being of business, not the well-being of people. Surely a church charity should understand people come first? Earlier trustees did understand this and did not consider duty bound to make every buck they could.

If the hospital needed money, I could understand its motivation.

But, as Mr Dragonetti knows, it has nearly £4 million in the bank. In the last three years, the income surplus over expenditure was £79,398, £43,169, and £30,792.

The last figure would have been £27,573 higher if the trustees had not ordered cosmetic, not vital, building work.

Many will think a small charity sitting on £4 million is unreasonable, that perhaps £100,000, ready for contingencies, would be adequate.

And the trustees agree. Their report for 2014 says: “The trustees consider a minimum of £100,000 should be kept in reserve.” They also say they have “ensured systems are in place to mitigate exposure” to identified risks. So why do they keep the £4 million?

Well, the trustees say, surplus income “may be applied for the benefit of the residents.” Yet, despite the £4 million, residents’ rents were raised by two per cent last year, neatly ensuring they received no benefit from the surplus cash or the state pension rise.

PETER BLACKLOCK Salisbury