Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 08 141100 STE 20 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 28 March 2008
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 240 Mc Caul St
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 28 March 2008
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Construct a new home for Toronto's Ronald McDonald House ( Short term accommodation average stay 48 days- for families whose children are being treated for cancer and other related illnesses)
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
Toronto's Ronald McDonald House · registration SM11629
Property:240 McCaul Street Lobbyist: Elizabeth Howson Development form and relationship to surrounding development
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM11629: Property:240 McCaul Street Lobbyist: Elizabeth Howson Development form and relationship to surrounding development (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 141100 STE 20 SA at 240 Mc Caul St: Construct a new home for Toronto's Ronald McDonald House ( Short term accommodation average stay 48 days- for families whose children are being treated for cancer and other related illnesses) (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Property:240 McCaul Street Lobbyist: Elizabeth Howson Development form and relationship to surrounding development
Matched fields
- address
- 240 MCCAUL ST
- application_address
- 240 MC CAUL ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
None.
Comparison with similar 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 11
46 lobbied · 113 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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.