Address · Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
21 Don Valley Parkway
- Communications on those registrations
- 0
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
- Location
- 43.65373, -79.34652
- How this address was located
- Located from the coordinates or ward published with the application.
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
No communications recorded.
All registrations· 1 row
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM20112 | Colliers International | 21 Don Valley Parkway | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development Application, Site Plan;… | 24 February 2014 – 2 November 2022 | 0 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
7- Submitted 27 April 2023Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 23 138604 STE 14 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 22 April 2022Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 22 137231 STE 14 SAUnder Review · In progress
- Submitted 18 June 2021Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 21 172637 STE 14 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 19 December 2018Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 18 270302 STE 14 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 December 2016Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 16 270071 STE 30 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 22 December 2016Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 16 270078 STE 30 SBDraft Plan Approved · Approved
- Submitted 13 October 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 236783 STE 30 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 7 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 138604 STE 14 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 April 2023 | Under Review In progress |
| 22 137231 STE 14 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 22 April 2022 | Under Review In progress |
| 21 172637 STE 14 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 18 June 2021 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 18 270302 STE 14 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 19 December 2018 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 270071 STE 30 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 22 December 2016 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 16 270078 STE 30 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 22 December 2016 | Draft Plan Approved Approved |
| 15 236783 STE 30 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 13 October 2015 | 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 14
17 lobbied · 35 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 17 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 35 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.
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.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 14
18 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 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 | 18 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 0.05 |
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.
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.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
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.