Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 11 331262 STE 19 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 28 December 2011
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 420 Bathurst St
- Ward
- Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
- Submitted
- 28 December 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
Site Plan approval application to construct a 3 sty retail building with underground parking. -
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
RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust · registration SM16045
410-444 Bathurst St.- variance application, zoning amendment and associated site plan application.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.77
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 SM16045: 410-444 Bathurst St.- variance application, zoning amendment and associated site plan application. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 11 331262 STE 19 SA at 420 Bathurst St: Site Plan approval application to construct a 3 sty retail building with underground parking. - (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 410-444 Bathurst St.- variance application, zoning amendment and associated site plan application.
Matched fields
- address
- 410-444 BATHURST ST
- application_address
- 420 BATHURST ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 2 communications · 2 meetings · 2 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Councillor Layton Ward 19 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 14 September 2011 |
| Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 14 September 2011 |
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 11
46 lobbied · 113 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 | 46 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 9% | 0.09 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 113 | 1,629 | 100% (n=12) | 0% | 2% | 0.02 |
| 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.