People flying from Gatwick could be hit by congestion charging under controversial plans to install a boundary around the airport which would see every car charged for a visit.

With an eye on Ken Livingstone's congestion scheme in London, the influential Gatcom committee, which delves into matters surrounding the airport, has called for a study into road charging.

But members heard a few extra pounds on top of car parking fees would not deter people from driving to the airport.

BAA, which runs the airport, said it has included the congestion charging issue in its response to a report on runway expansion.

It says it is the poor state of rail services in the area which continue to force people on to the road.

The Strategic Rail Authority is admitting defeat in a bid to have 40 per cent of Gatwick's passengers arriving by train.

In a separate report to the committee yesterday, the SRA confessed the figures had fallen from 32 per cent to 30 per cent.

The possibility of charging was raised by committee vice-chairwoman Hilary Sewell, wife of anti-runway campaigner Bernard.

She said: "It is high time we took a leaf from Ken Livingstone's book. The fundamental purpose of our transport strategy is to keep cars off the road."

Councillor Liz Kitchen, leader of Horsham District Council, said: "Something imaginative must be done to stop cars coming to Gatwick. I am appalled by the railways' attitude. It is their poor service which is turning people back to their cars."

Kay Hammond, a Surrey county councillor, said: "Any abandonment or reduction in these rail targets would be wholly unacceptable and the thin end of the wedge."

But Coun David Dewdney, of West Sussex County Council, said: "I doubt we would know what to do with all the extra money. One of the main problems is the poor structure of the station at Gatwick. I feel the SRA could do a great deal more. The road system is certainly overloaded."

Bernard Kendall, a Reigate borough councillor, condemned the rail situation.

He told the meeting: "The figure is simply unachievable. How can we get the number of passengers to increase if the numbers of trains are decreasing?"