lobbyTO

Address · Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher

354 Pape Ave

Registrations naming this address
2
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
10
3 offices contacted
Applications at this address
1
1 published links to lobbying
Council and committee items
0
Items naming this address

About this address

Ward
Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
Location
43.66863, -79.34077
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

Registrations that mention this address

2

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

  • Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth6
  • Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth3
  • Paula Fletcher1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 14 Toronto-DanforthMember of council6612 April 2022
Ward 30 Toronto-DanforthMember of council333 May 2017
Paula FletcherCouncillor staff1013 March 2018
All registrations· 2 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM24445Metropolitan Building Materials Ltd.354 Pape Ave.Planning and Development Application, Zoning By-law2 May 2017 – 17 June 20268
SM21374Metropolitan Building Materials Ltd.354 Pape AvenuePlanning and Development Application, Zoning By-law2 February 2015 – 2 February 20162

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
14 147891 STE 30 OZ
Development application
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)28 April 2014Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

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.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 14

18 lobbied · 28 matched

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

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 14: 18 lobbied and 28 matched unlobbied applications in 14 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied18Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied28Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—96% (n=78)4%14%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.