Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 13 281191 STE 28 SA

Ward 13 · Chris MoiseDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 24 December 2013; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 20 Lombard St; 25 Richmond St E
Ward: Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted: 24 December 2013
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 13 197153 STE 28 OZ

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

Description

Proposal for Site Plan Approval for a mixed use development with the preservation and restoration of the four storey heritage building and the construction of a new 45 storey tower containing street related retail uses and residential units above. The new building contains a four storey podium and is composed of two distinct but connected residential tower forms. A publically accessible pedestrian route framed by retail uses connects from Lombard Street through to Victoria Street. Retail uses are also provided along Lombard Street, Victoria Street and Richmond Street.

Linked lobbying registrations

No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

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

Great Gulf Group of Companies
SM19118 · 26 March 2013 · “25 Richmond Street East”
Great Gulf Group of Companies
SM17362 · 24 October 2011 · “25 Richmond Street East”

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 13

56 lobbied · 128 matched

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied100% n=7

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied7%
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 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	56	—	100% (n=5)	0%	7%	0.16
Matched, unlobbied	128	—	100% (n=7)	0%	2%	0.01

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.