Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 18 125604 NNY 24 SA
45 Cummer Ave; 46 Averill Cres; 47 Averill Cres; 53 Cummer Ave; 5799-5915 Yonge Street
- Status
- Final Approval Completed
- Approved
- Submitted
- 6 March 2018
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 45 Cummer Ave; 46 Averill Cres; 47 Averill Cres; 53 Cummer Ave; 5799-5915 Yonge Street
- Ward
- Ward 18 · Lily Cheng
- Submitted
- 6 March 2018
- Status
- Final Approval Completed
- Outcome recorded
- Approved
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 810 units; 73,346 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 11 287471 NNY 24 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site plan approval application for the first phase (Block 1) of the Newtonbrook Plaza re-development. Phase 1 includes two mixed-use towers of 34 and 32 storeys with a total of 810 residential units. A total gross floor area of 73,345.6 square metres is proposed, of which 65,100 square metres will be for residential uses, 3,713.7 square metres for retail uses, and 3,914.9 square metres will be for commercial (office uses).
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
2591260 Ontario Inc. · registration SM25049
Development application at the Newtonbrook Plaza site in North York Centre (address, 5915 Yonge Street).
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
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 SM25049: Development application at the Newtonbrook Plaza site in North York Centre (address, 5915 Yonge Street). (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 125604 NNY 24 SA at 5799-5915 Yonge St: Site plan approval application for the first phase (Block 1) of the Newtonbrook Plaza re-development. Phase 1 includes two mixed-use towers of 34 and 32 storeys with a total of 810 residential units. A total gross floor area of 73,345.6 square metres is proposed, of which 65,100 square metres will … (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Development application at the Newtonbrook Plaza site in North York Centre (address, 5915 Yonge Street).
Matched fields
- address
- 5915 YONGE ST
- application_address
- 5799-5915 YONGE ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Shiner | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 3 October 2017 |
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.
- Aoyuan InternationalSM31332 · 3 March 2021 · “5799-5915 Yonge Street”
- Aoyuan InternationalSM31333 · 3 March 2021 · “5799-5915 Yonge Street”
- Ontario Aoyuan Property LimitedSM26363 · 14 June 2018 · “5799-5915 Yonge Street”
- M2M Development CorporationSM25065 · 21 September 2017 · “5799-5915 Yonge Street”
- Cummer-Yonge Holdings Inc.SM22017 · 9 July 2015 · “46 Averill Crescent”
- Cummer-Yonge Holdings Inc.SM22017 · 9 July 2015 · “47 Averill Crescent.”
- Cummer-Yonge Holdings Inc.SM22017 · 9 July 2015 · “53 Cummer Avenue”
- Silvercore Properties Inc.SM21940 · 9 June 2015 · “5799-5915 Yonge Street”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21939 · 8 June 2015 · “45 Cummer Avenue”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21939 · 8 June 2015 · “46 Averill Crescent”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21939 · 8 June 2015 · “47 Averill Crescent”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21939 · 8 June 2015 · “53 Cummer Avenue”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21647 · 10 April 2015 · “45 Cummer Avenue”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21647 · 10 April 2015 · “46 Averill Crescent”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21647 · 10 April 2015 · “47 Averill Crescent.”
- Silvercore Inc.SM21647 · 10 April 2015 · “53 Cummer Avenue”
- Silvercore Properties Inc.SM11842 · 9 June 2008 · “5799-5915 Yonge 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 18
18 lobbied · 125 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 18 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 125 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.