lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 14 229173 STE 28 SA

45 Bay Street; 141 Bay St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
29 September 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
4
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
18
18 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
45 Bay Street; 141 Bay St
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
29 September 2014
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
14 209662 STE 28 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval application for the development of an office tower on 45 Bay Street, a bus terminal integrated into the podium of the tower, an open space area over a portion of the rail corridor and an access to the open space from the north side of the rail corridor on the 141 Bay St property.

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

4 linked registrations · 18 communications · 18 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale11
  • Ward 37 Scarborough Centre3
  • City Councillor, Pam McConnell, Ward 282
  • Chief of staff, Mayor's Office1
  • Office of councillor Ward 281
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 28 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council111121 September 2016
Ward 37 Scarborough CentreMember of council3316 November 2015
City Councillor, Pam McConnell, Ward 28Councillor staff221 September 2017
Chief of staff, Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff1119 April 2016
Office of councillor Ward 28Councillor staff111 September 2017

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.

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 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • 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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
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.