Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 22 191025 STE 09 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 15 August 2022
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 158 Sterling Rd
- Ward
- Ward 9 · Alejandra Bravo
- Submitted
- 15 August 2022
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 11 228729 STE 18 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan application to allow for the construction of a new commercial office building. The proposed building will be 11 storeys (44.86 metres) in height, excluding the mechanical penthouse. The proposed gross floor area of the building is 16,736.56 square metres, consisting of 16,544.91 square metres of office space and 191.65 square metres of ground floor retail uses.
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.
- Rio Tinto AlcanSM30716 · 14 October 2020 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM24465 · 3 May 2017 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM18668 · 6 November 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- CAW-CanadaSM18571 · 18 October 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio Properties LimitedSM16444 · 26 May 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Rio Tinto AlcanSM17739 · 27 January 2012 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM17405 · 4 November 2011 · “158 Sterling Road”
- Castlepoint Studio PartnersSM16075 · 21 March 2011 · “158 Sterling Road.”
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 9
20 lobbied · 21 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 20 | — | 100% (n=4) | 0% | 0% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 21 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 0% | 0.10 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 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.