Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 10 118668 STE 20 SA
134 Peter St; 362 Richmond St W; 364 Richmond St W; 375R Queen St W
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 16 February 2010
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 134 Peter St; 362 Richmond St W; 364 Richmond St W; 375R Queen St W
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 16 February 2010
- 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
Urban intensification for the northwest corner of Peter St and Richmond St. W., 134 Peter St. will remain as is; 364-370 Richmond St. W. will become intergrated in the proposed 17 storey development. A new atrium/lobby will link the two existing buildings to remain, on the ground floor - SEE 08 186740 ZPR - 08 209087 MV AND 08 229877 OA - FOR PPR, C OF A AND OMB.
Linked lobbying registrations
No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Entertainment One Canada Ltd.SM28070 · 1 April 2019 · “134 Peter St.”
- ENTERTAINMENT ONE LTDSM26197 · 11 May 2018 · “134 Peter St.”
- ENTERTAINMENT ONE LTDSM25953 · 29 March 2018 · “134 Peter Street”
- ENTERTAINMENT ONE LTDSM23188 · 31 May 2016 · “134 Peter Street”
- ENTERTAINMENT ONE LTDSM21527 · 20 March 2015 · “134 Peter St”
- ENTERTAINMENT ONE LTDSM21501 · 4 March 2015 · “134 Peter St”
- Allied Properties REITSM14273 · 25 March 2010 · “375R Queen Street West”
- Allied Properties REITSM12248 · 11 September 2008 · “134 Peter Street”
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 10
66 lobbied · 165 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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.