lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 24 174546 WET 03 SA

2 Audley St; 8 Newcastle St; 10 Audley St; 29 Portland St; 59 Portland St; 71 Portland St

Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
4 July 2024
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
2
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
94
17 meetings · 7 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
2 Audley St; 8 Newcastle St; 10 Audley St; 29 Portland St; 59 Portland St; 71 Portland St
Ward
Ward 3 · Amber Morley
Submitted
4 July 2024
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
413 units
Related file
16 168925 WET 06 OZ

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

Description

Proposed 40-storey, 123 metre, mixed-use building containing 413 residential 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

Lobbying on linked registrations

2 linked registrations · 94 communications · 17 meetings · 7 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Amber Morley55
  • Development Review23
  • Toronto Building4
  • Amber Morley4
  • Housing Secretariat3
  • Parks & Recreation3
  • City Planning1
  • Development and Growth Services1
Data table· 8 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Amber MorleyCouncillor staff55922 May 2026
Development ReviewCity staff2364 September 2026
Toronto BuildingCity staff409 January 2025
Amber MorleyMember of council4126 January 2026
Housing SecretariatCity staff3113 November 2025
Parks & RecreationCity staff3012 May 2026
City PlanningCity staff1019 August 2025
Development and Growth ServicesCity staff1026 May 2025

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 3

24 lobbied · 100 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied71% n=10

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied29%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied4%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

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 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, unlobbied100—71% (n=10)29%4%0.14
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.