Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 18 271208 STE 10 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 21 December 2018
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 25 Rees St; 255 Bremner Blvd
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 21 December 2018
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 11 229840 STE 20 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Proposed amendment to the approved site plan application for the Hydro Station (File No. 11 229840 STE 20 SA) to make the temporary driveway access from Lower Simcoe into a permanent access for the site.
Linked lobbying registrations
No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Cineplex Inc.SM28085 · 30 April 2019 · “255 Bremner Blvd.”
- Cineplex Inc.SM23443 · 12 August 2016 · “255 Bremner Blvd”
- John Street Roundhouse Development Corp.SM22915 · 7 March 2016 · “255 Bremner Blvd”
- John Street Roundhouse Development Corp.SM22768 · 10 February 2016 · “255 Bremner Boulevard”
- Cineplex Inc.SM22771 · 9 February 2016 · “255 BREMNER BLVD”
- State Building GroupSM22745 · 2 February 2016 · “255 Bremner Blvd.”
- State Building GroupSM16598 · 22 June 2011 · “255 Bremner Blvd”
- State Building GroupSM11518 · 9 April 2008 · “255 Bremner Blvd”
- Steam Whistle BrewingSM11355 · 7 March 2008 · “255 Bremner Boulevard.”
- Steam Whistle BrewingSM11346 · 6 March 2008 · “255 Bremner Boulevard.”
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 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 | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | 1,881 | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| 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.