"The council sent an email saying that the containers were a building and provided a legal opinion, but that legal opinion has been roundly criticised and challenged,” Peebles said.
"What they’ve determined is because a container is heavy and man-made, it is a structure and connected to the ground by gravity.
"Therefore it is considered a building.
“It’s a completely absurd interpretation and it won’t hold up in any court."
Peebles said a meeting was set to be held with the city council on Thursday to discuss how they would move forward.
"Any non-compliances, we’ll apply for resource consent," he said.
Peebles said containers were classed as buildings if they were used for residential or office spaces or for on-site storage.
The city council’s interpretation would be challenged by him and the shipping container industry as it had "massive ramifications".
The Peebles and Pinnacle groups have given the city council alternative legal opinions and put forth a compromise while the definition is challenged through the Environment Court.
"It’s important to understand that if the council’s interpretation is upheld, anything over 6 sq m that’s heavy and is difficult to move is therefore considered a building,” he said.
Peebles had worked with the city council for the last two years on the project, and it had visited the site weekly.
City council head of regulatory compliance Tracey Weston said the city council could not comment on its ongoing investigation into the site.
