Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 11 187311 ESC 37 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 4 May 2011
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 1051 Ellesmere Rd
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Submitted
- 4 May 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
Description
proposed temporary sales trailer for proposed Monarch residential townhouse subdivision.
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
The Goldman Group · registration SM16027
Processing and Approvals of the Rezoning, Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan applications for 1051 Ellesmere Road.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.84
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 SM16027: Processing and Approvals of the Rezoning, Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan applications for 1051 Ellesmere Road. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 187311 ESC 37 SA at 1051 Ellesmere Rd: proposed temporary sales trailer for proposed Monarch residential townhouse subdivision. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Processing and Approvals of the Rezoning, Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan applications for 1051 Ellesmere Road.
Matched fields
- address
- 1051 ELLESMERE RD
- application_address
- 1051 ELLESMERE RD
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.
- A. Mantella & SonsSM17384 · 28 October 2011 · “1051 Ellesmere Rd.”
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 21
10 lobbied · 44 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 44 | 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=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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.