The University of Sussex has wasted millions of pounds installing a network of cables after a series of blunders.

Failures by the project management have sent costs spiralling over budget and staff and students now fear it could lead to cuts in funding.

Executives originally allocated £2 million to install computer and telephone wires across the Falmer campus but have admitted the final cost will be £4.75 million.

Although the university could not say if the debacle would lead to staff cuts or courses being axed, it confirmed the extra millions would have to come out of day-to-day running costs over the lifetime of the new network, predicted to be about 15 years.

The project is already 12 months behind schedule and it may not even be completed if the university's governors decide not to agree extra funding.

An internal investigation has revealed a litany of mistakes and oversights, prompting calls for members of the senior management board to publicly apologise.

The university's governing body was told the number of computer points allocated to each room bore no relation to the size of room or number of users.

One woman on her own in a tiny office ended up with 21 computer points, while another room which can take only four computers got nine points.

It also emerged project leaders had not taken into account that most of the work would have to be carried out at night.

The revelations, which come at a time when students are campaigning against top-up fees and poor staffing of courses, have led to calls for resignations at the most senior levels.

Staff and students are angry so much money has been spent over the original budget.

One technician said: "There has been a major cover up and a side-stepping of taking any responsibility by senior staff who should have had control of this awful overspend.

"We have already been told no more academic staff are going to be employed in the next year because of problems with the cash flow. This really needs a proper investigation."

The original estimate for the project in 2000 was £1.5million but a budget of £2 million was set in 2002 to get the work finished by January 2003.

The university had to add a further £1 million that year and has admitted, 12 months after the original deadline, the project is now running at a cost of £4 million.

If the governing body agrees to finish the project, it will be completed by July at a final cost of £4.75 million.

A member of the senate said: "It's an absolute scandal. If you are going to overspend to this degree you have to employ a project manager. They were confident they would be able to project-manage it themselves."

The University of Sussex, which has 11,000 undergraduates, is at the forefront of a campaign by dons to introduce top-up fees and a vociferous campaign by students to oppose them.

Its annual income is about £100 million and it has a policy of keeping at least £5 million "rainy day money" in the bank.

Yet the student union says many undergraduates see tutors for just two hours a week.

One member said: "When you are short of cash, £2.5 million is something you just cannot lose."

Union leader Kat Craig said: "The Students' Union was made aware of the situation and was extremely concerned to hear that an overspend of this magnitude had occurred, especially in the financial climate the university finds itself where budgetary centres such as, but not only, the Students' Union are struggling to make ends meet.

"I assume when financial mismanagement of this scale occurs, it would suggest the senior management of the university is the most appropriate area to look to for accountability."

Auditors have made a raft of recommendations to avoid future errors, including the foundation of a permanent review team to oversee capital projects.

Rob Read, the university's director of communications, said no staff had been sacked but would not comment on whether individual contracts had been renewed.

He insisted the work had been value for money but admitted: "There were errors in the management of the project, hence the need for an internal audit review and the recommendations of things we need to review.

"If the management of the project had been effective we wouldn't have needed the review.

"I agree that it wasn't properly project-managed but there is no question of fraud or impropriety."

Mr Read said initial cost projections had proved over-optimistic when it emerged more work was needed than first thought.

He said: "The reason for the concerns is that the reporting and the management structures didn't expose the continued costs this year until the project was too far advanced."

Pressed on whether senior managers would be resigning over the affair, he said: "This is something we take seriously. This is why we put an internal audit review in place and we are learning lessons for the future.

"This is an isolated example of our £60 million capital project and it's not a systemic failure."

Thursday January 08, 2004