Machynlleth Town Council will take ‘no further action’ against a councillor for a potential breach of conduct.

Councillor Kim Bryan was investigated for wrongfully stating that a petition against her business had been withdrawn during the October council meeting.

At the December meeting, proper officer and councillor Jeremy Paige presented a report into whether Cllr Bryan had deliberately misled the council and whether she broke rules by not declaring a conflict of interest.

Cllr Norma McCarten said: “Cllr Bryan has declared her interest in the sauna company on at least two occasions.

“The behaviour of other councillors [during the October meeting] was so poor, it was a wretched presentation of how councillors should conduct themselves.

“This squabbling is unacceptable - I’d like to see this matter dealt with with as much dignity as possible.”

Councillors voted to conclude the matter, with three abstentions.

Cllr Gareth Jones who called for the investigation was not at the meeting.

Cllr Bryan stated in a Facebook apology that she had been led to believe the petition had been withdrawn ‘due to inaccuracies’ after speaking to people who were giving it out.

The petition was against a community sauna project, Sawna Dyfi, being placed on council land - Cllr Bryan is one of the project directors.

Cllr Bryan stated that she was now confused about when declarations of interest should be made for items not on the agenda.

The report stated that though the agenda did not mention Sawna Dyfi or the petition, ‘there are several mechanisms by which issues can be discussed, not least in the clerk's report as per this situation’, without being listed on the agenda.

It added that ‘the non-appearance of an item on the agenda does not give clearance for declaration of interests to not be made at this point in the meeting’ and that ‘declaring an interest is entirely at the councillors discretion’.

In the meeting, Cllr Bryan said: “I’d like to publicly apologise for misleading the council - I did genuinely believe [the petition] had been withdrawn.

“However this is only half of the investigation - I only had one informal discussion with [Cllr Paige] and haven't received any formal email about it.”

She continued, stating that she “regretfully” felt forced to refer this incident to the Ombudsman due to what she felt was disparate treatment and a GDPR breach: “The complaint letters about me were made publicly available - accusing me of ‘corruption’, ‘collusion’ and ‘being disgraced’, also naming the complainants.

“This contradicts GDPR and these remain in the public arena.

“This entire investigation was in the public arena, whilst allegations of misconduct by other councillors and staff are being dealt with privately in committee.

“This disparity raises significant questions about fairness and transparency - I don’t believe I’m being treated the same way as other councillors.

“The accusations have been defamatory and have impacted on me personally, professionally and my children have now also been brought into this.

“I really regret this but I don’t feel I’ve got another choice - I’ve referred this to the ombudsman.”