Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 22 242108 WET 03 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 23 December 2022
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 85 Vickers Rd
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Submitted
- 23 December 2022
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 4,442 m² gross floor area
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Proposed three single storey buildings consisting of two industrial buildings and a storage building. Total GFA of 4442sqm.
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
Clean Soils Services Inc. · registration SM28009
85 Vickers Road, Etobicoke
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.86
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 SM28009: 85 Vickers Road, Etobicoke (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 22 242108 WET 03 SA at 85 Vickers Rd: Proposed three single storey buildings consisting of two industrial buildings and a storage building. Total GFA of 4442sqm. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 85 Vickers Road, Etobicoke
Matched fields
- address
- 85 VICKERS RD
- application_address
- 85 VICKERS RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Grimes | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 11 April 2019 |
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.
- Buena Vista Acquisition CorporationSM16328 · 4 May 2011 · “85 Vickers Road”
- Buena Vista Acquisition CorporationSM16326 · 2 May 2011 · “85 Vickers 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 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | 1,629 | 70% (n=10) | 30% | 4% | 0.14 |
| 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.