Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 20 204651 WET 03 SA

65 Jutland Rd; 956 Islington Ave; 962 Islington Ave

Ward 3 · Amber MorleyDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Closed; Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted: 8 October 2020; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 65 Jutland Rd; 956 Islington Ave; 962 Islington Ave
Ward: Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted: 8 October 2020
Status: Closed
Outcome recorded: Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded

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

Description

Three sites are being combined. Demolish existing 1 storey school and childcare at 65 Jutland Rd and replace with 6696 sqm, 2-storey school and childcare. Demolish Candy Factory at 956 Islington and redevelop into sports fields, playgrounds and new school bus drop-off. 962 Islington previously had a single family home, was demolished, and currently houses portable classes used by the school. It will house south-east end of new school, and playgrounds.

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.

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 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Median days

Lobbied—
Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

Lobbied100% n=5
Matched, unlobbied70% n=10

Refusal rate

Lobbied0%
Matched, unlobbied30%

Appeal rate

Lobbied4%
Matched, unlobbied4%

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 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
Group	n	Median days	Approval rate	Refusal rate	Appeal rate	Council items
Lobbied	24	—	100% (n=5)	0%	4%	0.25
Matched, unlobbied	100	1,629	70% (n=10)	30%	4%	0.14

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
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.