lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 14 251448 STE 27 SA

101 Bond St; 105 Bond St; 111 Bond St; 270 Church St; 272 Church St; 274 Church St; 280 Church St; 288 Church St

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
13 November 2014
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
4
1 meeting · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
101 Bond St; 105 Bond St; 111 Bond St; 270 Church St; 272 Church St; 274 Church St; 280 Church St; 288 Church St
Ward
Ward 13 · Chris Moise
Submitted
13 November 2014
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
14 157484 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan application by Ryerson University to permit a 27-storey building (plus a two storey mechanical penthouse) with a height of 104.8 metres . The building will contain 15,052 square metres of academic, administration and retail space in the base building and an additional 10,675 square metres of space in the tower for 100 student residence units with 332 beds in total. The proposal also includes four levels of underground parking containing 155 commercial public parking spaces.

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 · 4 communications · 1 meeting · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale3
  • Ward 22 St. Paul's1
Data table· 2 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ward 27 Toronto Centre-RosedaleMember of council3117 September 2015
Ward 22 St. Paul'sMember of council104 September 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.

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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied56—100% (n=5)0%7%0.16
Matched, unlobbied128—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
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.