lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 220574 STE 11 SA

208 Bloor St W; 210 Bloor St W

Status
OMB Appeal
In progress
Submitted
1 October 2021
Appealed
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
1
0 meetings · 1 office

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
208 Bloor St W; 210 Bloor St W
Ward
Ward 11 · Dianne Saxe
Submitted
1 October 2021
Status
OMB Appeal
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
Yes
Related file
21 126531 STE 11 OZ

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

Description

May 2026 Update: The site plan applications at 208 Bloor and 210 Bloor have been combined to enable the redevelopment of the site as a 36-storey Private Student Residence (112.58 metres, including the mechanical penthouse).208 Bloor is subject to By-law 778-2024.210 Bloor is subject to By-law 782-2022 (OLT)Variance applications are currently being processed.

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

1 linked registration · 1 communication · 0 meetings · 1 office contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 1 row
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Dianne SaxeCouncillor staff105 April 2023

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 11

46 lobbied · 113 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=3
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied9%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,236 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=63
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=98

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 11: 46 lobbied and 113 matched unlobbied applications in 26 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied46—100% (n=3)0%9%0.09
Matched, unlobbied113—100% (n=11)0%2%0.02
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,236 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=63)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,236—97% (n=98)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.