Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 11 131706 STE 18 SA

1140 Queen St W; 1142 Queen St W; 1144 Queen St W; 1150 Queen St W

Ward 9 · Alejandra BravoDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 23 February 2011; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1140 Queen St W; 1142 Queen St W; 1144 Queen St W; 1150 Queen St W
Ward: Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
Submitted: 23 February 2011
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 · City application page

Description

Site Plan Approval application for new 3 storey addition to east side of existing Drake Hotel. Addition will be constructed on 1140, 1142 and 1144 Queen St W, which will become part of the hotel.

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.

Flophousechic Hotels Limited
SM23080 · 7 May 2016 · “1150 Queen Street West”
Drake Hotel Properties Inc
SM22265 · 29 September 2015 · “1150 Queen St West”
Drake Hotel Properties Inc
SM22265 · 29 September 2015 · “1140 Queen St W”
Jeff Stober
SM13530 · 4 July 2009 · “1150 Queen Street West.”
Jeff Stober
SM13531 · 4 July 2009 · “1150 Queen Street West.”
The Drake Hotel
SM13527 · 26 March 2009 · “1150 Queen St. W”

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 9

20 lobbied · 21 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=4
Matched, unlobbied100% n=4

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=61
Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 9: 20 lobbied and 21 matched unlobbied applications in 12 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	20	—	100% (n=4)	0%	0%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	21	—	100% (n=4)	0%	0%	0.10

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.