Address · Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
1140 Queen St W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Location
- 43.64335, -79.42433
- How this address was located
- Matched exactly to a City of Toronto address point.
Sources: City of Toronto Lobbyist Registry, Development Applications, Committee of Adjustment Applications and Address Points (open data). Lobbyist Registry · Development Applications · Committee of Adjustment · Address Points
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
1These registrations name this address in their particulars, after the address was standardised (street type and direction abbreviations). This is a text match, not an inferred link.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 4 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 18 Davenport | Member of council | 8 | 7 | 19 January 2017 |
| Planning Department | City staff | 5 | 5 | 19 January 2017 |
| Heritage | City staff | 2 | 2 | 11 July 2016 |
| Internal Focused Services | City staff | 1 | 1 | 10 June 2016 |
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM22265 | Drake Hotel Properties Inc | 1140 Queen St W | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan;… | 29 September 2015 – 31 January 2020 | 16 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
1- Submitted 23 February 2011Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 11 131706 STE 18 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 1 row
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 131706 STE 18 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 23 February 2011 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 9
20 lobbied · 21 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.