Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 14 171615 STE 19 SA
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Approved
- Submitted
- 10 June 2014
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 2 Strachan Ave
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 10 June 2014
- Status
- NOAC Issued
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- 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
To obtain site plan approval to allow for the expansion of BMO field.
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.
- Astral Media Outdoor,LPSM24680 · 7 June 2017 · “2 Strachan Avenue”
- Astral Out Of HomeSM24572 · 17 May 2017 · “2 Strachan Avenue.”
- Astral Media Outdoor, L.P.SM24437 · 1 May 2017 · “2 Strachan Avenue”
- Astral Media Outdoor, L.P.SM24423 · 27 April 2017 · “2 Strachan Avenue”
- Cieslok MediaSM23565 · 28 September 2016 · “2 Strachan Avenue”
- Cieslok MediaSM23521 · 13 September 2016 · “2 Strachan Avenue.”
- Cieslok MediaSM23084 · 9 May 2016 · “2 Strachan Avenue”
- Cieslok MediaSM23046 · 26 April 2016 · “2 Strachan Avenue.”
- Cieslok MediaSM23047 · 26 April 2016 · “2 Strachan Avenue.”
- Cieslok MediaSM23049 · 26 April 2016 · “2 Strachan Avenue.”
- Cieslok MediaSM21278 · 15 January 2015 · “2 Strachan Avenue.”
- Maple Leaf Sports &Entertainment Ltd.SM20665 · 9 July 2014 · “2 Strachan Avenue”
- Clarity Outdoor Media Inc.SM19930 · 13 December 2013 · “2 Strachan Avenue”
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 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval 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 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 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.