A set of Roman ruins on the outskirts of Norwich could get an enlarged car park to cope with a rising number of visitors.

The remains, at Caistor St Edmund, have become an increasingly popular spot, prompting concerns that the site is outgrowing its existing parking facilities.

The expansion plans are among a series of infrastructure projects which could be funded by money provided by local housing developers.

The scheme would cost around £90,000 and could be paid for by a community infrastructure levy (CIL) – a charge on housing building for supporting local projects.

The money is allocated by the Greater Norwich Growth Board (GNGB) - a group made up of Norwich, South Norfolk, Broadland and the county councils.

The area around Caistor was once the capital of the Iceni tribe, a Brittonic tribe during the Iron Age and early Roman era.

Its best known leader, Boudica, launched a revolt against the Roman invaders.

The site was also settled by the Romans themselves, who called it Venta Icenorum.

Interest in it was triggered in the 1920s, after an RAF reconnaissance aircraft took a series of aerial photographs which showed the outline of streets and buildings, appearing as pale lines in the fields.

It is now considered one of Norfolk's most significant Roman sites and the last decade has seen a series of excavations, led by the University of Nottingham, supported by the community-led Caistor Roman Project.

The Caistor scheme is among dozens of potential CIL projects across the Norwich area outlined in the GNGB infrastructure plan, which the organisation approved at a meeting on Monday.

Others include new walking routes, toilet improvements and new meeting spaces at public libraries.

However, not all the projects necessarily end up being completed.

Grace Burke, a GNGB officer, warned that “60-70pc of the projects in the plan are purely aspirational”.

John Fuller, the chair of the board and leader of South Norfolk Council, criticised the plans, describing the list of projects as “nothing more than a shopping list” which needed better descriptions and to state how feasible each item is.

He said: “We need to split out what are definite projects, what are aspirational projects, we really do have to prioritise.

“We need to understand what’s ready to go, what’s credible and what is simply just a collection of idle wishes.”