Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 12 298669 WET 02 SA
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 31 December 2012
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 40 Reading Crt
- Ward
- Ward 1 · Vincent Crisanti
- Submitted
- 31 December 2012
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 12 298665 WET 02 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Proposal to construct new 6 storey place of worship.
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
House of Praise · registration SM19881
40 Reading Court, Etobicoke
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM19881: 40 Reading Court, Etobicoke (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 12 298669 WET 02 SA at 40 Reading Crt: Proposal to construct new 6 storey place of worship. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 40 Reading Court, Etobicoke
Matched fields
- address
- 40 READING CRT
- application_address
- 40 READING CRT
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 8 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 8 | 1 | 4 April 2015 |
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 1
4 lobbied · 12 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 12 | 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=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.