Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 10 227493 STE 19 SA
201 Claremont St; 207 Claremont St; 209 Claremont St; 211 Claremont St; 213 Claremont St; 215 Claremont St; 217 Claremont St; 219 Claremont St; 221 Claremont St; 222A Manning Ave; 222B Manning Ave; 223 Claremont St; 224A Manning Ave; 224B Manning Ave; 225 Claremont St; 226 Manning Ave; 227 Claremont St; 228 Manning Ave; 229 Claremont St; 230 Manning Ave; 231 Claremont St; 232 Manning Ave; 233 Claremont St; 234 Manning Ave; 235 Claremont St; 236 Manning Ave; 237 Claremont St; 238 Manning Ave; 239 Claremont St; 240 Manning Ave; 241 Claremont St; 242 Manning Ave; 243 Claremont St; 244 Manning Ave; 245 Claremont St; 246 Manning Ave; 247 Claremont St; 248 Manning Ave; 249 Claremont St; 250 Manning Ave; 251 Claremont St; 252 Manning Ave; 254 Manning Ave; 256 Manning Ave; 258 Manning Ave; 260 Manning Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 23 July 2010
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 201 Claremont St; 207 Claremont St; 209 Claremont St; 211 Claremont St; 213 Claremont St; 215 Claremont St; 217 Claremont St; 219 Claremont St; 221 Claremont St; 222A Manning Ave; 222B Manning Ave; 223 Claremont St; 224A Manning Ave; 224B Manning Ave; 225 Claremont St; 226 Manning Ave; 227 Claremont St; 228 Manning Ave; 229 Claremont St; 230 Manning Ave; 231 Claremont St; 232 Manning Ave; 233 Claremont St; 234 Manning Ave; 235 Claremont St; 236 Manning Ave; 237 Claremont St; 238 Manning Ave; 239 Claremont St; 240 Manning Ave; 241 Claremont St; 242 Manning Ave; 243 Claremont St; 244 Manning Ave; 245 Claremont St; 246 Manning Ave; 247 Claremont St; 248 Manning Ave; 249 Claremont St; 250 Manning Ave; 251 Claremont St; 252 Manning Ave; 254 Manning Ave; 256 Manning Ave; 258 Manning Ave; 260 Manning Ave
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 23 July 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
Demolition of existing school and redevelopment of the lands for the purposes of a 45 unit rowhouse development located in 8 construction blocks above a common underground parking facility leading to enclosed private parking for each unit. Each unit will have frontage on a munipal street and access to the proposed parking facility would be provided via Manning Ave
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.
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.