Development application · Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
Development application 21 235019 STE 10 CD
133 John St; 241 Richmond St W
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 6 November 2021
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Draft Plan of Condominium (CD)
- Addresses
- 133 John St; 241 Richmond St W
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 6 November 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
- 470 units
- Related file
- 21 171253 STE 10 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
*** Draft Plan of Condominium for 470 units.
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
Festival Hall Developments Limited · registration SM27361
Assisting with the development application at 126, 132, 142 John St. & 259, 261, 263 & 267 Richmond St. W.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.76
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM27361: Assisting with the development application at 126, 132, 142 John St. & 259, 261, 263 & 267 Richmond St. W. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 21 235019 STE 10 CD at 241 Richmond St W: *** Draft Plan of Condominium for 470 units. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Assisting with the development application at 126, 132, 142 John St. & 259, 261, 263 & 267 Richmond St. W.
Matched fields
- address
- 142 JOHN ST
- application_address
- 133 JOHN ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 0 communications · 0 meetings · 0 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsNo communications recorded.
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- Deltera Inc.SM30851 · 11 November 2020 · “133 John Street”
- Deltera Inc.SM30851 · 11 November 2020 · “241 Richmond Street West”
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.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), Ward 10
4 lobbied · 25 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Condominium (CD), City-wide
28 lobbied · 95 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 25 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 28 | — | 100% (n=3) | 0% | 0% | 0.04 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 95 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 0% | 0.03 |
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.