Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 11 220406 STE 28 SA

40 Bay St; 85 Harbour Street; 90 Harbour Street

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 16 June 2011; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 40 Bay St; 85 Harbour Street; 90 Harbour Street
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 16 June 2011
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 11 194925 STE 28 SA

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page

Description

Site Plan Approval for elevated PATH pedestrian bridge to connect the second floor of Waterpark Place Phase III at 10-20 Bay Street and 85 Harbour Street over the Harbour Street road allowance, across the west side of 90 Harbour Street site, over Lake Shore Boulevard West/under the Gardiner Expressway and connecting to the south side of 40 Bay Street (Air Canada Centre) on the second floor.

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

Oxford Properties Group · registration SM16388
85 Harbour Street office development and pedestrian bridge for PATH Connection from 40 Bay Street (Air Canada Centre) to 85 Harbour Street
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.85
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 SM16388: 85 Harbour Street office development and pedestrian bridge for PATH Connection from 40 Bay Street (Air Canada Centre) to 85 Harbour Street (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 220406 STE 28 SA at 85 Harbour St: Site Plan Approval for elevated PATH pedestrian bridge to connect the second floor of Waterpark Place Phase III at 10-20 Bay Street and 85 Harbour Street over the Harbour Street road allowance, across the west side of 90 Harbour Street site, over Lake Shore Boulevard West/under the Gardiner Express… (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 85 Harbour Street office development and pedestrian bridge for PATH Connection from 40 Bay Street (Air Canada Centre) to 85 Harbour Stree…
Matched fields
address
85 HARBOUR ST
application_address
85 HARBOUR ST

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Office of Councillor McConnell1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Office of Councillor McConnell	Councillor staff	1	0	18 May 2011

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Goodmans LLP1 registration

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

Maple Leaf Sports &Entertainment Ltd.
SM25679 · 26 February 2018 · “40 Bay Street”
Menkes Developments Ltd
SM17274 · 5 October 2011 · “90 Harbour Street”
Menkes
SM15507 · 6 December 2010 · “90 Harbour Street”
Oxford Properties Group
SM14967 · 23 August 2010 · “85 Harbour Street”
Oxford Properties Group
SM14984 · 23 August 2010 · “85 Harbour Street”
Torgan Group
SM11679 · 6 May 2008 · “90 Harbour 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 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied3%
Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=63
Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied3%

Data table· 4 rows

Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	66	—	100% (n=5)	0%	3%	0.05
Matched, unlobbied	165	—	100% (n=11)	0%	2%	0.04

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.