Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 08 180128 ESC 38 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 9 July 2008
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 740 Progress Ave
- Ward
- Ward 24 · Paul Ainslie
- Submitted
- 9 July 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
Applicant is proposing upgrades to their fuel, chiller plant and storm water storage systems. A new, 6th storey, 850 m2 roof top penthouse is proposed.
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
TD bank Financial Group · registration SM11970
Meeting to present the details of the SPA application for the facility at 740 Progress Ave, Scarborough
Evidence High confidence · score 0.96
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM11970: Meeting to present the details of the SPA application for the facility at 740 Progress Ave, Scarborough (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 08 180128 ESC 38 SA at 740 Progress Ave: Applicant is proposing upgrades to their fuel, chiller plant and storm water storage systems. A new, 6th storey, 850 m2 roof top penthouse is proposed. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Meeting to present the details of the SPA application for the facility at 740 Progress Ave, Scarborough
Matched fields
- address
- 740 PROGRESS AVE
- application_address
- 740 PROGRESS AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Other 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 24
6 lobbied · 15 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 | 6 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 15 | 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.