Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 185123 ESC 41 SA

Ward 23 · Jamaal MyersDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 5 July 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 1; Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations: 1; 0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 240 Alton Towers Crcl
Ward: Ward 23 · Jamaal Myers
Submitted: 5 July 2016
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 · City application page

Description

This is a Site Plan Control application for a stand alone commercial building (restaurant) with a drive-thru facility.

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

Cedar City Developments · registration SM23535
240 & 250 Alton Towers Circle
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.78
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM23535: 240 & 250 Alton Towers Circle (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 16 185123 ESC 41 SA at 240 Alton Towers Crcl: This is a Site Plan Control application for a stand alone commercial building (restaurant) with a drive-thru facility. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 240 & 250 Alton Towers Circle
Matched fields
address
240&250 ALTON TOWERS CIR
application_address
240 ALTON TOWERS CIR

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations

Building1

Data table· 1 row

Office	Office holder type	Communications	Meetings	Last contact
Building	City staff	1	0	1 April 2020

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 23

2 lobbied · 2 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 23: 2 lobbied and 2 matched unlobbied applications in 1 matched stratum
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	2	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	2	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.