Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 11 240844 STE 19 SA
842 Richmond St W; 844 Richmond St W; 846 Richmond St W; 850 Richmond St W
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 19 July 2011
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 842 Richmond St W; 844 Richmond St W; 846 Richmond St W; 850 Richmond St W
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 19 July 2011
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 11 240835 STE 19 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
This application proposes the development of a 3 storey, 20 unit stacked townhouse development, with rooftop terraces, and vehicular access provided via a rear laneway.
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
850 Richmond Street Inc. · registration SM16970
Development proposal regarding a townhouse project at 842 to 856 Richmond Street West
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.80
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 SM16970: Development proposal regarding a townhouse project at 842 to 856 Richmond Street West (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 240844 STE 19 SA at 842 Richmond St W: This application proposes the development of a 3 storey, 20 unit stacked townhouse development, with rooftop terraces, and vehicular access provided via a rear laneway. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development proposal regarding a townhouse project at 842 to 856 Richmond Street West
Matched fields
- address
- 856 RICHMOND ST W
- application_address
- 846 RICHMOND ST W
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther 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 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.