Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 18 133753 STE 22 SA
89 Roehampton Ave; 101 Roehampton Ave
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 23 March 2018
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 89 Roehampton Ave; 101 Roehampton Ave
- Ward
- Ward 12 · Josh Matlow
- Submitted
- 23 March 2018
- 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
- 383 units
- Related file
- 16 112811 STE 22 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Proposal for site plan related to a new 38 storey rental apartment building containing 237 units to be built adjacent to the existing 19-storey rental apartment building which contains 146 units (total of 383 units)
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
Roehampton Apartments Limited c/o Arcanos Property · registration SM28813
Assisting with the development of 101 Roehampton Avenue
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.73
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 SM28813: Assisting with the development of 101 Roehampton Avenue (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 18 133753 STE 22 SA at 89 Roehampton Ave: Proposal for site plan related to a new 38 storey rental apartment building containing 237 units to be built adjacent to the existing 19-storey rental apartment building which contains 146 units (total of 383 units) (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Assisting with the development of 101 Roehampton Avenue
Matched fields
- address
- 101 ROEHAMPTON AVE
- application_address
- 101 ROEHAMPTON AVE
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 3 communications · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor John Tory | Councillor staff | 3 | 1 | 7 October 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 12
32 lobbied · 72 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 | 32 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 3% | 0.00 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | 511 | 100% (n=7) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| 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.