lobbyTO

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
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
2
0 meetings · 1 office

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

Lobbying on linked registrations

1 linked registration · 2 communications · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Shiner2
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor ShinerCouncillor staff203 October 2017

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

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 18

18 lobbied · 125 matched

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

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 18: 18 lobbied and 125 matched unlobbied applications in 16 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied18Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied125Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—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.