A High Court verdict on the future of Gravesend town centre is still to be decided – taking longer than expected.

Judge Mr Justice Ouseley retired on Friday afternoon to consider whether to accept claims that the Heritage Quarter plans were handled incorrectly by Gravesham council, or to throw out the arguments made by civic society Urban Gravesham so that work can begin.

The judicial review, held at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, was due to last a day-and-a-half, but the judge ended proceedings at 4pm on Friday by saying the verdict would be given “in due course”.

The public gallery was packed full of Urban Gravesham supporters throughout the review, with some even electing to watch through a window when the courtroom was full.

Adam Holloway, MP for Gravesham, attended the second day of proceedings. He has previously described the Heritage Quarter plans as “hideous and shocking”.

David Hughes, chief executive of the council, was in attendance for the entire hearing alongside other council staff.

Outside the courtroom, secretary of Urban Gravesham Sue Couves said: “We are feeling confident.

“I think [the judge] was precise with his questioning. It would have been nice if we heard the decision today.”

A full statement is due to be released by the group upon the delivery of the judge’s decision.

A spokesman for Gravesham council said: “We are content to await the decision of the judge in this matter and cannot comment further.”

The civic society, represented by James Findlay QC, argued against the council on three grounds. First, that council officers wrongly considered the plans afresh after it had already been dealt with by councillors – who they argue are higher up the decision-making ladder.

Second, that those officers failed to return the matter to councillors after the circumstances surrounding plans had changed, including negotiations on the section 106 agreement which allows the council to insist the developer pay towards various “extras” such as road systems, footpaths, and other key amenities.

Third, and finally, that officers failed to take account of the importance of the decision made by councillors, nor the changes in circumstances that had taken place – such as changes to the section 106 contributions promised by developer Edinburgh House.

The council, represented by Timothy Straker QC, resisted all three of these challenges, arguing that it was “common ground” to delegate powers to council officers to determine planning applications.

They also said that all relevant changes in circumstance – including section 106 contributions and the proposed expansion of Bluewater shopping centre – had been considered by officers.

Potential outcomes will likely either see Gravesham council found in favour and work can begin, or Urban Gravesham will be celebrating when the plans are referred back to the council. This could mean it goes back before councillors for determination.

A verdict is due to be delivered in writing “in due course”.