What do they have to hide?
Clearly they discussed the Tesco agreement not to use council land for an alternative supermarket site. Ultimately they resolved not to proceed with the consultation brief for Station Road produced for discussion with the public, before the public even had a say on it. They did agree to revisit the issue in Sept/Oct clearly hoping that Tesco would have received planning permission by then and it wouldn't be necessary.
Also, during the discussion any councillor with a personal interest was excluded from the debate. This seems a very short-sighted way to work. I always find this approach worrying, surely every view should be considered even if they are not allowed to vote. Would a business exclude those people who know most about a subject because they might be biased? Can anybody really say they are impartial?