Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 15 140566 ESC 37 SA

Ward 21 · Michael ThompsonDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 14 April 2015; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 85 Ellesmere Rd
Ward: Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
Submitted: 14 April 2015
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
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

Fourth Circulation - Proposed alterations to previous site plan approval (File#: 11 231243 ESC 37 SA) that entail splitting the approved but unbuilt pad building into two separate buildings along Victoria Park; and proposed changes to the site that include: a new retail pad building along Victoria Park; demolition of several areas within the existing Mall building; scaled back (from previous circulations) facade improvements of existing enclosed mall building; a new driveway entrance at the existing signalized intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Combermere Drive; and alterations to the parking areas; and landscaping.

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.

Meta Growth Corp
SM30713 · 13 October 2020 · “85 Ellesmere Rd”

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 21

10 lobbied · 44 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 21: 10 lobbied and 44 matched unlobbied applications in 9 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	10	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	44	Hidden: 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
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.