ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Some might say he is being hard on himself. After all, he has just achieved a change that will influence the corporation for years to come: Jon Rouse's confirmation as the successor to chief executive Norman Perry. Rouse is due to start work next month with a mandate to boost the corporation's profile and "move everything up a gear".

That will coincide with the publication of the end-to-end review of the corporation and the expected confirmation that it will keep its investment and regulation roles (HT 5 March, page 8). Coupled with the go-getter image of wunderkind Rouse, currently chief executive of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the thumbs-up from the end-to-end review should end a long period of speculation over the corporation's future.

A year ago, it looked likely to be shut down and its powers transferred to English Partnerships and the regions. But the government has the Communities Plan to implement and did not have time to bring in the legislation that would have been necessary. Instead, it brought in Dixon.

Parachuted in several times as an appointee to the boards of ailing housing associations, he has a three-year contract that he "hopes to want to be able to renew" and a mandate to turn around the corporation itself. "We've got a whole raft of things we can do," he says. "We're in a tremendous, useful position and we've just got to make the most of it."

Chosen for his sharp, polished manner, his wide-ranging background in the public and private sectors and his ability to work well with others, Dixon made it clear from the start that he was not interested in being a caretaker chairman, steering the corporation through its last days. Instead, he wants to increase the corporation's public profile, give it a bigger say in policy-making, sort out its staffing problems and improve its communications with the ODPM.

The 58-year-old former banker, who became interested in housing after a brief spell as chair of Islington council's planning committee, has clear views on the role of a chairman. He once told a health select committee: "Most chief executives will always find a good reason why they need to do something exceptional: chairmen are perhaps a little more cautious."

Industrial relations, he says, are not the chairman's remit and, although he is determined the row with Unison workers at the corporation should be speedily resolved, he is adamant it is up to Rouse to resolve it.

Their partnership should make an interesting contrast to the days of Baroness Dean as chair and chief executive Norman Perry. Dean was always the public face of the corporation and the one who pulled the political strings. But Dixon "isn't interested in headlines", says one former colleague, and will be content to let Rouse take the limelight and use his high-level connections to push things through.

On policy issues, though, Dixon, who is also the chair of the University College of London NHS Hospital Trust, is more willing to set the agenda. He has already impressed staff with his ability to grasp issues quickly and apparently requires far less briefing than his predecessors. This reflects his 20-year experience of housing – he was one of the first board members of New Islington & Hackney and has also sat on the boards of Anglia and London & Quadrant.

Relaxed and friendly in his small corner office in the corporation's headquarters, Maple House on Tottenham Court Road in central London, Dixon never ducks a direct question. The corporation, he says, would "think about" relaxing the rules on rent restructuring if there were a good enough reason to do so. He would take a poor view of a registered social landlord saying it needed to relax the rules in order to meet the decent homes standards, he says several times, but would be more willing to listen to an association that wanted to do something positive – such as use the money to meet decent homes early, or even build new homes. "If you have a rent cap of retail price index plus 1% rather than a cap of RPI plus 0.5% and that enables an RSL to double its outputs and meet decent homes and do a few other things, then I'm listening," he says.

We are there to deliver something for the government. That doesn’t mean we’re a poodle

Peter Dixon

The chairman has publicly expressed reservations about paying social housing grant to private developers. While he welcomes the principle of getting more houses for less money, he is less keen on the ODPM's plan to ring-fence a proportion of the annual budget for private developers. Dixon admits "the suggested ring-fencing has come from government" but is careful to point out that "it's not enshrined in law as yet". He adds: "I think in some form it will be on the statute book by the end of the year, and I hope it will be a sufficiently generalised power for us to come up with some ideas about how to use it as the 'carrot' to attract bids at the level that will give us considerably more houses for the money available."

Dixon hopes such diplomacy, rather than aggression, will win greater influence for the corporation with the ODPM. "We have a relationship that is sufficiently adult to have a conversation, if necessary behind closed doors, where we can say if something isn't a good idea and why," he says.

In answer to criticisms from many in the sector that the relationship should be more independent – particularly from Andrew Bennett MP, the vociferous chair of the ODPM select committee who once branded the corporation a "crummy organisation" – Dixon replies in his usual measured tones: "The government invests in order to achieve certain things. It has certain policies that it wants to achieve and we are the medium through which it achieves those ends. Now, there's a limit to how independent we should be in that context because we are there to deliver something for the government. It doesn't mean that we're a poodle, it just means that we have a particular job to do."

After the publication of the end-to-end review, though, Dixon expects to see a change in relations with the government. The review is expected to criticise the way the ODPM communicates with the corporation and could be used as a lever to increase the corporation's role in making policy. Whitehall will take the brunt of the criticism and, as a result, the standing of those at Maple House will improve. Candidly, Dixon admits that the relationship needs to be "more grown-up" and adds: "I think [after the review] we'll get engaged in things earlier and be able to discuss things in a sensible way."

He won't be drawn on any particular policies that the corporation plans to press for, but says he wants it to act as a reality check, getting involved in policy-making at an early stage and telling the ODPM what the implications of its policies will be on the ground. As an example, he cites the proposal to allow developers to pay a tariff rather than provide affordable homes on-site through planning gain agreements. Dixon fears potential pitfalls and wants "safeguards" to prevent local authorities using the money for things other than housing and to ensure land for development could be found.

"We will be tying together more of the micro policies at a macro level," he says, using economic terms that would have been everyday in his former banking career. "We are influencing the very high-level agenda on the delivery of affordable housing."

Let's get personal
But he is not so forthcoming on his private life. Asked about hobbies, he rolls his eyes and asks: "You have to do personal stuff as well, do you?" But, obliging as ever, he reveals that his interests include mountaineering – he takes a climbing trip every summer – sailing, and choral singing – "very badly, but I enjoy it".

Dixon has proved popular across the sector – perhaps because of his reluctance to take centre stage – and will oversee sweeping changes. Economist Kate Barker's interim report into housing supply raised the question of mergers between smaller RSLs to boost efficiency and slash overheads. Does he expect to see far fewer housing associations at the end of his reign than at the start?

"I think we will be doing more to encourage mergers where appropriate, but we aren't in a position to force them and it would be wrong to pretend we were," he replies.

However, he admits that his plans for the regulation regime could bring about more mergers. "If an organisation is not upping its act on a regular basis, we will, with our regulatory hat on, say 'should you be doing this a bit better? Should you be cutting those costs, do you really need to be spending three times as much on maintenance as that association down the road that has got a better rating for tenant satisfaction?' We shall be asking some of those questions and by a combination of economics and making those sorts of ratings more obvious, there will be additional pressure for organisations either to up their act or merge."