Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 207936 STE 27 SA

Ward 11 · Dianne SaxeDataset pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 16 August 2016; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 21 Price St; 25 Price St
Ward: Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted: 16 August 2016
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Related file: 11 257217 STE 27 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Approval Amendment: Proposal to extend the mechanical screen to the south roof parapet to maintain visual and acoustic protection to neighbouring properties, the screen will be raised 305mm to match the height of the privacy screen around the accessible rooftop terrace.

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.

Timbercreek Asset Management
SM26391 · 21 June 2018 · “25 Price Street”
Timbercreek Asset Management
SM26392 · 21 June 2018 · “25 Price Street”
Timbercreek Asset Management
SM16628 · 24 June 2011 · “25 Price Street”
Timbercreek Asset Management
SM11680 · 6 May 2008 · “25 Price Street”

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 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=2
Matched, unlobbied100% n=12

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

Lobbied9%
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 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	46	—	100% (n=2)	0%	9%	0.09
Matched, unlobbied	113	1,629	100% (n=12)	0%	2%	0.02

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.