lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 14 189038 ESC 36 SA

2965 Kingston Rd

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
11 July 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
30
8 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
2965 Kingston Rd
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
11 July 2014
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
742 m² gross floor area

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

Description

Revised submission: Proposed one-storey, stand alone, commercial building having a gross floor area of approximately 742 m² to be located on the northwest portion of the existing Cliffcrest Plaza site.

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

3 linked registrations · 30 communications · 8 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Gary Crawford, Ward 3612
  • Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest12
  • Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest3
  • Councilllor Glenn De Baermeeker Ward 381
  • Norm Kelly ward 401
  • Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest Gary Crawford1
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Gary Crawford, Ward 36Councillor staff12222 March 2016
Ward 36 Scarborough SouthwestMember of council12422 October 2015
Ward 36 Scarborough SouthwestCouncillor staff3215 June 2015
Councilllor Glenn De Baermeeker Ward 38Councillor staff1011 June 2015
Norm Kelly ward 40Councillor staff108 June 2015
Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest Gary CrawfordCouncillor staff1015 June 2015

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

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 20

11 lobbied · 34 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 20: 11 lobbied and 34 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied11Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied34Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.