Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 11 314214 STE 27 SA

Ward 11 · Dianne SaxeDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 23 November 2011; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 2; 2 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 6 Elm Ave
Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted: 23 November 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

Redevelopment of the existing dining facility building for the construction of a new dining, athletics and wellness facility complete with two swimming pools, connection to the existing junior school and connection to the existing Mount Pleasant Road pedestrian bridge.

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

Branksome Hall · registration SM18539
#6 Elm Avenue
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 SM18539: #6 Elm Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 314214 STE 27 SA at 6 Elm Ave: Redevelopment of the existing dining facility building for the construction of a new dining, athletics and wellness facility complete with two swimming pools, connection to the existing junior school and connection to the existing Mount Pleasant Road pedestrian bridge. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: #6 Elm Avenue
Matched fields
address
6 ELM AVE
application_address
6 ELM AVE

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Office of Councillor Wong-Tam Ward 271
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale1

Data table· 2 rows

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Office of Councillor Wong-Tam Ward 27	Councillor staff	1	1	15 October 2012
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale	Member of council	1	1	15 October 2012

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Maclennaan Jaunkalns Miller Architect1 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.

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 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=12

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied9%
Matched, unlobbied2%

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 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
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

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.