lobbyTO

Address · Ward 10 · Ausma Malik

85 Harbour Street

Registrations naming this address
3
1 client organisation
Communications on those registrations
3
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 10 · Ausma Malik
Location
43.64185, -79.37891
How this address was located
Matched to the nearest civic number on the same street in the City's address points. Matched address: 88 HARBOUR ST (3 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

3

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

  • Office of Councillor McConnell1
  • Office of Councillor McConnell, Ward 281
  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale1
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor McConnellCouncillor staff1018 May 2011
Office of Councillor McConnell, Ward 28Councillor staff111 December 2010
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council111 December 2010
All registrations· 3 rows
RegistrationClientAs writtenSubject matterDatesCommunications
SM16388Oxford Properties Group85 Harbour StreetPlanning and Development Application, Site Plan; Planning and Development Application, Minor Varian…18 May 2011 – 31 August 20111
SM14967Oxford Properties Group85 Harbour StreetTransportation - Roads / Bridges23 August 2010 – 28 February 20110
SM14984Oxford Properties Group85 Harbour StreetTransportation - Roads / Bridges23 August 2010 – 23 August 20112

Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address

1
Data table· 1 row
ApplicationTypeSubmittedStatus
11 220406 STE 28 SA
Development application
Site Plan Approval (SA)16 June 2011Closed
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.

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
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.