lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 249660 STE 10 SA

462 Wellington St W

Status
NOAC Issued
Approved
Submitted
17 December 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
5
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
78
32 meetings · 10 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
462 Wellington St W
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
17 December 2021
Status
NOAC Issued
Outcome recorded
Approved
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
134 units
Related file
19 133227 STE 10 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan Application for a mixed-use development including a retirement home, office and retail uses. The development proposes a 15 storey building and retains the heritage building on the site. Overall the development proposes 22,349square metres of space include 6,411 square metres of office space and 1,176 square metres of retail space. 134 units are proposed in the retirement home. There are 65 vehicle parking spaces and 78 bicycle parking spaces proposed.

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

5 linked registrations · 78 communications · 32 meetings · 10 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Ausma Malik31
  • Councillor Joe Mihevc13
  • Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York12
  • Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 108
  • Ausma Malik4
  • Joe Cressy3
  • Toronto Water2
  • Councillor Joe Cressy2
Data table· 11 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ausma MalikCouncillor staff31826 May 2024
Councillor Joe MihevcCouncillor staff13631 August 2022
Ward 10 Spadina-Fort YorkMember of council12827 October 2022
Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 10Councillor staff8319 June 2019
Ausma MalikMember of council4328 February 2024
Joe CressyCouncillor staff3312 April 2022
Toronto WaterCity staff208 May 2019
Councillor Joe CressyCouncillor staff2112 April 2022
Parks, Forestry & RecreationCity staff1020 June 2024
Parks, Forestry & RecreationCity staff1020 June 2024
Ausma MalikCouncillor staff1030 December 2021

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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

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 · 1,236 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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
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.