Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 200896 STE 30 SA

1 Basin St; 17 Basin St; 101 Commissioners St

Ward 14 · Paula FletcherDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 3 August 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 1 Basin St; 17 Basin St; 101 Commissioners St
Ward: Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
Submitted: 3 August 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

Description

Castlepoint Numa, on behalf of Toronto Waterfront Studios Development Inc. (TWDSI), has submitted a Site Plan Control application (#16-200896 STE 30 SA) to develop the lands at 101 Commissioners Street and 1 and 17 Basin Street with a 3-storey, 6,724 square metre office building (purpose built film and television support facility) with broadcasting and communication uses, and office uses, and a temporary surface parking lot for 95 parking spaces. The site is located within Pinewood Toronto Studies and the site is owned by the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC). A related application for consent, in order to support the long-term lease agreement between the TWSDI and TPLC, has also been submitted to the City.

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.

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 14

17 lobbied · 35 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 14: 17 lobbied and 35 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	17	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied	35	Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	449	—	100% (n=61)	0%	4%	0.07
Matched, unlobbied	1,237	727	97% (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.