lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 18 150447 STE 19 SA

10 Ordnance St; 11 Ordnance St; 25 Ordnance St; 45 Strachan Ave

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
30 April 2018
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
35
4 meetings · 7 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
10 Ordnance St; 11 Ordnance St; 25 Ordnance St; 45 Strachan Ave
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
30 April 2018
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Related file
12 223589 STE 19 OZ

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

Description

The proposed development consists of a purpose-built 39-storey rental apartment tower that incorporates a 6-storey base podium with commercial uses at-grade. The proposed building will contain 433 rental apartments units, a 385 square metre commercial unit at-grade, 212 parking spaces, 530 bicycle parking spaces, and one Type 'G' loading space.

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

2 linked registrations · 35 communications · 4 meetings · 7 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 8 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ausma MalikCouncillor staff1908 May 2024
Ward 19 Trinity-SpadinaMember of council3314 February 2018
Olivia ChowCouncillor staff3129 May 2024
Development ReviewCity staff2013 November 2024
Transportation ServicesCity staff206 October 2020
Councillor Joe CressyCouncillor staff207 February 2022
Mayor John ToryCouncillor staff2031 October 2018
Ausma MalikMember of council208 May 2024

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 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.