A bidding process for around £10 million of unspent cash amassed by East Devon District Council from contributions made by developers as part of planning approval for their schemes is set to begin soon.

The money comes from community infrastructure levies (CIL) and what are known as Section 106 contributions.

CIL is a charge that local authorities can set on new developments to raise funds to help fund infrastructure, facilities and services – such as schools or transport improvements – needed to support new homes and businesses.

Section 106 cash can be used for highways improvements, providing facilities such as play parks, and can also be linked to affordable housing.

The council’s latest infrastructure funding statement shows it has around £10 million of unspent funds.

Staff shortages in its planning department have meant that the council has had difficulty allocating the money, and couldn’t produce a statement for the 2022/23 financial year outlining how much it had received from such contributions.

Cllr Todd Olive (Liberal Democrat, Whimple and Rockbeare) who chairs the strategic planning committee, said the council now had a SIL working group and a new team of officers.

Ed Freeman, an assistant director in the planning department, said they hope to create a shortlist from bids from strategic infrastructure providers, such as Devon County Council and the NHS by the autumn.

“We have agreed an outline of the process and put that in motion, so we are hoping to approach providers in the next few weeks to start that process,” Mr Freeman said.

Cllr Dan Ledger (Independent, Seaton) said CIL and Section 106 money could be earning interest.

“I’d like to propose that any future interest we get from this type of money is ring-fenced for infrastructure funding,” he said.

While a motion was approved to ask the council’s cabinet to consider this, deputy leader Paul Hayward (Independent, Axminster) warned about unintended consequences.

“It will have a significant impact on the council’s budget to we need to be careful what we wish for,” he said.

“I understand from this committee’s perspective [the interest] should be ring-fenced, but we need to find out the implications, as while it might be a laudable and worthy motion, if it could have detrimental effects elsewhere then that needs to be unpicked.”