lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 14 227846 STE 27 SA

5 Wellesley St W; 7 Wellesley St W; 11 Wellesley St W; 14 Breadalbane St; 16 Breadalbane St; 20 Breadalbane St; 25 Wellesley St W; 26 Breadalbane Street

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
25 September 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
3
3 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
5 Wellesley St W; 7 Wellesley St W; 11 Wellesley St W; 14 Breadalbane St; 16 Breadalbane St; 20 Breadalbane St; 25 Wellesley St W; 26 Breadalbane Street
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
25 September 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
740 units
Related file
13 138607 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan application for a 60 storey (194.1 metre including mechanical penthouse) mixed use building containing 740 dwelling units, 5,650 square metres of non-residential uses including retail uses at grade and office uses in the second and third floors. There are 134 commercial parking spaces and 486 residential parking spaces proposed below grade and 771 bicycle parking spaces. The proposal also includes an expanded park space from Wellesley Street to Breadalbane Street. The site is subject to site specific by-laws 1063-2014 and 1064-2014.

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

1 linked registration · 3 communications · 3 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 13 Toronto Centre3
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 13 Toronto CentreMember of council3314 December 2021

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

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

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=8

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied7%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 13: 56 lobbied and 128 matched unlobbied applications in 32 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied56—100% (n=5)0%7%0.16
Matched, unlobbied128—100% (n=8)0%2%0.01
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.