41 Antrim Cres

RegistrationsApplicationsReport an error on this page

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

About this address

Ward: Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Location: 43.77191, -79.28792
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

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

H & R DevelopmentsSM23999 · 6 February 20171

Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address

Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Ward 40 Scarborough-Agincourt	Member of council	1	1	13 February 2017

All registrations· 1 row

Registration	Client	As written	Subject matter	Dates	Communications
SM23999	H & R Developments	41 Antrim Crescent	Planning and Development Application, Site Plan	6 February 2017 – 5 February 2018	1

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

Submitted 29 December 2017Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0001/18SCClosed · Approved
Submitted 24 November 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 255889 ESC 40 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)

Data table· 2 rows

Application	Type	Submitted	Status
A0001/18SC Committee of Adjustment application	Minor variance (MV)	29 December 2017	Closed Approved
16 255889 ESC 40 SA Development application	Site Plan Approval (SA)	24 November 2016	Closed 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

41 Antrim Cres · Site Plan Approval (SA)
16 255889 ESC 40 SA · submitted 24 November 2016 · Closed · from registration SM23999 (H & R Developments)
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM23999: To discuss the development proposal for the property of 41 Antrim Crescent (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 255889 ESC 40 SA at 41 Antrim Cres: To construct a three-storey rental apartment building containing 21 units. The existing 14-storey residential apartment building will be retained. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: To discuss the development proposal for the property of 41 Antrim Crescent
Matched fields
address
41 ANTRIM CRES
application_address
41 ANTRIM CRES

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 21

3 lobbied · 48 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 21: 3 lobbied and 48 matched unlobbied applications in 3 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	3	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.

Minor variance (MV), City-wide: 173 lobbied and 3,646 matched unlobbied applications in 103 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Objection rate
Lobbied	173	126	75% (n=154)	25%	19%	43%
Matched, unlobbied	3,646	114	91% (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

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 21

10 lobbied · 44 matched