lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 23 127950 WET 03 SA

56 Fieldway Rd; 58 Fieldway Rd; 60 Fieldway Rd

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
28 March 2023
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
11
2 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
56 Fieldway Rd; 58 Fieldway Rd; 60 Fieldway Rd
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
28 March 2023
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
1,340 units
Related file
21 205810 WET 03 OZ

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

Description

Site Plan application proposing to redevelop the site into a mixed-use community comprised of four tall buildings at 12, 23, 34 and 42 storeys. The proposal introduces a total of 1,340 new residential units and 1,536 square metres of non-residential space. The total gross floor area of the development is 92,466 square metres.

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 · 11 communications · 2 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Toronto Water4
  • Mayors Office3
  • John Tory2
  • Transportation Services1
  • Mayor's Office1
Data table· 5 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Toronto WaterCity staff4010 July 2024
Mayors OfficeCouncillor staff3113 April 2023
John ToryCouncillor staff203 February 2023
Transportation ServicesCity staff1012 January 2024
Mayor's OfficeCouncillor staff113 March 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.

None.

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 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied1,629

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied70% n=10

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied30%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide

449 lobbied · 1,237 matched

Median days

  • Lobbied—
  • Matched, unlobbied727

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=61
  • Matched, unlobbied97% n=96

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied3%
Data table· 4 rows
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3: 24 lobbied and 100 matched unlobbied applications in 18 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied24—100% (n=5)0%4%0.25
Matched, unlobbied1001,62970% (n=10)30%4%0.14
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide: 449 lobbied and 1,237 matched unlobbied applications in 307 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied449—100% (n=61)0%4%0.07
Matched, unlobbied1,23772797% (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.