lobbyTO

Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley

2 Wickman Road

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page
Registrations naming this address
1
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
0
Applications at this address
3
No published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Location
43.61754, -79.53120
How this address was located
Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 10 WICKMAN RD (8 civic numbers away).

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

Registrations that mention this address

1

These 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

No communications recorded.

All registrations· 1 row
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM20181Northwest Properties Corporation2 Wickman RoadBy-law / Regulation; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan24 February 2014 – 30 December 20140

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

3
Data table· 3 rows
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
A0552/19EYK
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)23 October 2019Closed
Approved
19 153681 WET 03 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)13 May 2019Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
A0059/18EYK
Committee of Adjustment application
Minor variance (MV)18 January 2018Closed
Approved

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

Committee of Adjustment 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.

Minor variance (MV), Ward 3

4 lobbied · 265 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide

173 lobbied · 3,646 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied126
  • Matched, unlobbied114

Approval rate

  • Lobbied75% n=154
  • Matched, unlobbied91% n=3,058

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied25%
  • Matched, unlobbied9%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied19%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Objection rate

  • Lobbied43%
  • Matched, unlobbied27%
Data table· 4 rows
Minor variance (MV), Ward 3: 4 lobbied and 265 matched unlobbied applications in 4 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied4Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied265Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateObjection rate
Lobbied17312675% (n=154)25%19%43%
Matched, unlobbied3,64611491% (n=3,058)9%4%27%

Submission to hearing. 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.

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 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied71% n=10

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied29%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied24—100% (n=5)0%4%0.25
Matched, unlobbied100—71% (n=10)29%4%0.14
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)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.