Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 143750 STE 10 SA

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page

Status: Under Review; In progress
Submitted: 21 April 2021; No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations: 0; None published
Communications on linked registrations: 0

Application record

Type: Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses: 25 Queens Quay E
Ward: Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted: 21 April 2021
Status: Under Review
Outcome recorded: In progress
Decision date: Not recorded in the open data
Appealed: No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description: 449 units
Related file: 21 143747 STE 10 OZ

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

Description

Proposal to modify previously approved Buildings A and F. Building A is proposed with a revised height of 11 storeys containing 136 residential dwelling units (previously approved for 13 storeys containing 132 units). Building F is proposed with a revised height of 45 storeys containing 449 residential dwelling units (previously approved for 13 storeys containing 139 units). In total, an additional 314 residential units are proposed. Please note that OPA/Rezoning File No. 21 143747 STE 10 OZ is being reviewed at the same time as Site Plan Control File No. 21 143750 STE 10 SA. OPA/Rezoning must be approved prior to site plan approval.

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.

Pier 27 Toronto (North) Inc.
SM16109 · 31 March 2011 · “25 Queens Quay East”
Pier 27 Toronto (North) Inc.
SM14099 · 3 February 2010 · “25 Queens Quay East”
Cityzen Development Corporation
SM10790 · 13 February 2008 · “25 queens quay east”

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
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

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.