lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 16 269540 STE 20 SA

1 Draper St; 6 Spadina Ave; 8 Spadina Ave; 10 Spadina Ave; 12 Spadina Ave; 14 Spadina Ave; 16 Spadina Ave; 18 Spadina Ave; 19 Draper St; 425 Wellington St W; 439 Wellington St W; 440 Front St W; 443 Wellington St W; 444 Front Street West; 450 Front St W; 462 Front St W

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
21 December 2016
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
0
None published
Communications on linked registrations
0

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1 Draper St; 6 Spadina Ave; 8 Spadina Ave; 10 Spadina Ave; 12 Spadina Ave; 14 Spadina Ave; 16 Spadina Ave; 18 Spadina Ave; 19 Draper St; 425 Wellington St W; 439 Wellington St W; 440 Front St W; 443 Wellington St W; 444 Front Street West; 450 Front St W; 462 Front St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
21 December 2016
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
1,681 units; 289,000 m² gross floor area
Related file
14 116571 STE 20 OZ

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

Description

Proposal Description:Submission of a site plan application for the Retail and Office components of the development of the former Globe and Mail site (Master Sipe Plan submission). This application includes the underground parking, retail and office components of the site plan application to permit a comprehensive development of the former Globe and Mail site (aka. The Well). The project, now under construction, includes seven mixed-use buildings comprising retail, office and residential uses. A maximum of 289,000 square metres of gross floor area includes 102,797 square metres office space; 47,290 square metres of retail space and 132,923 square metres of residential space. A total of 1,681 residential units are proposed. See Zoning By-laws 124-2017 and 125-2017. Four site plan applications have been submitted and are under review comprising the residential component of the development.

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.

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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,881

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • 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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied1651,881100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
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.