Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 17 278837 WET 05 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 22 December 2017
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 66 Jutland Rd
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Submitted
- 22 December 2017
- 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
- 11,636 m² gross floor area
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
The proposed development consists of 50 industrial units with a total gross floor area of 11,636 square metres.
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
Dunpar Developments Inc. · registration SM27632
Application for Site Plan Approval 66 Jutland Rd. App. No. 17 27 8837 WET 05 SA
Evidence High confidence · score 0.95
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM27632: Application for Site Plan Approval 66 Jutland Rd. App. No. 17 27 8837 WET 05 SA (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 17 278837 WET 05 SA at 66 Jutland Rd: The proposed development consists of 50 industrial units with a total gross floor area of 11,636 square metres. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Application for Site Plan Approval 66 Jutland Rd. App. No. 17 27 8837 WET 05 SA
Matched fields
- address
- 66 JUTLAND RD
- application_address
- 66 JUTLAND RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 3 communications · 1 meeting · 2 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Grimes, Ward 3 | Councillor staff | 2 | 1 | 20 February 2019 |
| Economic Development & Culture | City staff | 1 | 0 | 1 March 2019 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther 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 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | 1,629 | 70% (n=10) | 30% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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.