A Cornwall councillor will receive a formal censure over her decision not to apologise after describing some protesters as the “sinister underbelly of Cornish nationalism”.

The council’s standards committee met on Tuesday to consider a report from the council’s legal team regarding Dulcie Tudor’s refusal to apologise despite being ordered to after being found to have breached the council’s code of conduct.

The breach was due to comments she made in a radio interview when there was a protest taking place at County Hall last summer concerning the overdevelopment of Cornwall.

In the interview Cllr Tudor said that she agreed with most of the protesters but said that “few select people here who are some sort of sinister underbelly of Cornish nationalists”.

The comment led to a complaint by some of the protesters and the council found that Cllr Tudor had breached the code of conduct and should apologise. However the Liberal Democrat councillor refused to apologise and highlighted that she had been subject to abuse from some people in the lead up to and following the protest.

Read more: Cornwall's standards committee to discuss councillor's protest comments

After she refused to apologise the complainants again made a formal complaint and in January Cllr Tudor was again requested to apologise. She again refused to do so.

As a result the matter went before the standards committee to decide what action, if any, to take.

Committee chairman Paul Wills stressed to members that the committee was not considering Cllr Tudor’s original comments, only her refusal to apologise.

Council head of legal Matt Stokes, who made the original decision about the breach of the code of conduct, said he was concerned that Cllr Tudor’s refusal to apologise had an impact on the effectiveness of the council’s standards and complaints procedure.

He said he was aware that Cllr Tudor had been subjected to abuse and could understand her point of view.

Cllr Tudor told the committee that she had been subjected to abuse online, by email and on social media. She said this escalated following the comments and the complaint being made to the council.

She said: “I am sure that you will appreciate that I have already suffered to toll that it has taken on me as a person, as a councillor and on all of my family.”

Asked about her refusal to apologise she said: “I find it quite hard to accept the decision. I can’t figure out who I was supposed to be apologising to. The decision didn’t make any sense to me.”

The committee heard that Cllr Tudor had not asked for a review of the decision after it was made and she said that the stress of the situation may have affected her decision making.

She added: “In hindsight I should have asked for a review but with everything that was going on at the time I couldn’t make a decision and come round to that thinking.”

Cllr Tudor said she had passed the abusive messages to the police and they had been logged as “malicious communications”.

The standards committee decided that Cllr Tudor should be issued with a formal, public censure for failing to apologise. They also said she should undertake code of conduct training within two months.

In their decision the committee noted the personal abuse that Cllr Tudor had received but said her refusal to apologise “undermines the role of a councillor and the ethical standards regime”.

The formal censure will be read out at the next full council meeting by the chairman of the standards committee.

Read next: Beach attack sees boy, 14, hit with bottle

Speaking afterwards Cllr Tudor said her instinct was to resign as a councillor but she wanted to continue good work she was doing to help people in her division in Threemilestone and Gloweth.

She said: “My instinct would be to resign but I have got so much that needs to be done with projects in Threemilestone and Gloweth and I don’t want that to be lost.”

In a statement she said: “I’m disappointed by the standards committee’s decision today, but I hope it draws a line under the matter.

“I had hoped the committee, mostly made up of elected Cornwall, parish and town councillors would appreciate the stance I’m taking with those who’ve subjected me to a campaign of abuse since I was elected onto Cornwall Council.

“By doubling down on the council’s corporate governance officer’s decision that I had broken the council’s code of conduct and been disrespectful the committee are only helping those who are attempting to intimidate and silence democratically elected councillors.

“We hear in the news about harassment of MPs but it’s important we don’t forget about people in grass roots local politics, many of whom are in some ways more vulnerable.

“Nationally, abuse directed at councillors has risen five fold since 2016. Last year more than 80 councillors reported physical, verbal and on-line abuse. Attacks included bomb threats, cars set alight and threats by phone or on-line.

“I myself have had dog mess smeared on my car and I’ve reported email threats to the police which they’ve logged as malicious communication, and on police advice I have had my home address removed from the council website.

“Although most of the abuse I receive is from people hiding behind keyboards. I have also had to request a security presence when I chair council planning meetings, had people shouting in my face at public events, and had to explain to my children why lies about their mother were all over social media.

“The Local Government Association has warned this sort of abuse puts prospective candidates off standing. Given what I and my family have experienced, would I recommend anyone standing for council? No.

“I think things need to change at Cornwall Council. There should be robust mechanisms in place to support and advise councillors who’re being harassed. And the code of conduct itself which is too open to interpretation should allow for harassment and abuse of councillors to be taken into consideration, which it was not in my case.

“Instead I was judged as being disrespectful to the unpleasant individuals who’re people who’ve been harassing me, who I referred to last July when I saw them hiding in plain sight among the genuine and peaceful protesters, because I had offended them.

“I understand that as someone who holds a position of responsibility people will disagree with me. That’s healthy debate. But abuse, threats and intimidation undermine democracy.”