Which is not to say that councillors might not have dressed up their decision, for electoral reasons, announcing it in the room as being due to "overwhelming numbers" whilst quietly putting a real planning reason into the minutes
That is the same as forging the minutes of what was discussed at a meeting - something I have seen myself. The minutes I saw bore no relation at all to what was discussed. (I submitted an appeal, and at the same time submitted a very slightly amended application, which went through because the committee knew I would have almost certainly got both on appeal and they would have looked right pl0nkers).
Planning committees are a joke. I would recommend anybody doubting this to go to a few and sit through the whole 3 hours or whatever, and see peoples' applications torn apart by a bunch of local politicians who, for the most part, have never been to the site and most don't even understand a drawing. It's worse than a magistrates' court, and I could tell stories about 3 apes behind the bench. There are some smart ones but the vote goes on a majority...
Of course, what you won't know about is the crookery that goes on under the table, with crooked councillors doing deals to support/object to certain proposals, if certain other proposals are amended/withdrawn. (In fact this is turns out to be a useful tactic for an applicant if he knows a well connected planning consultant, who can do quiet deals like that; stuff which could not be done publicly due to councillor loss of face).
Anybody serious will forget the planning committee and be ready, from day 1, to continue straight to appeal, while perhaps submitting a revised application (a good tactic). Unfortunately an appeal is currently a 1 year wait, which is why the committee system stays in business. Where I live, 80% of committee refusals (where the planning officer approved it on planning policy) are restored on appeal - a complete joke. If the queue for appeal was 2 weeks, the whole ccttee system would be shut down.
The way to play the local system smartly is to submit an initial app which meets planning policy but is a bit ugly. The planning officer grudgingly approves it, the ccttee chucks it out of course (and all the objectors turn up thinking justice was done because they had their say), you put in an appeal and immediately submit an app for what you really wanted. (Obviously there was no need to spend too much money on detail design on the first app). The ccttee will then usually approve the 2nd app because they know they will look daft if you go to appeal and get both approved; the ugly one is invariably cheaper to build and many people do major developments just prior to moving out (to increase the house value) so they aren't bothered about living with it.
It's cynical but the system, comprising of so many have-a-go amateurs, has been created to be exploited in a cynical manner.