Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 26 180009 ESC 21 SA
- Status
- Under Review
- In progress
- Submitted
- 8 June 2026
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 85 Ellesmere Rd
- Ward
- Ward 21 · Michael Thompson
- Submitted
- 8 June 2026
- Status
- Under Review
- Outcome recorded
- In progress
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 15 140566 ESC 37 SA
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Amendment. seeking to amend a previous Site Plan Approval to reflect the existing conditions of Parkway Mall. The changes uncludes: 1.New commercial/retail pad buildings along the Victoria Park frontage (CRU D-1, and CRU E);2.The demolition of the southwest and southeast portions of the existing mall;3. Intersection upgrades at Victoria Park Avenue and Combermere Drive associated with proposed building CRU E and;4.Landscaping and parking changes associated with proposed buildings CRU D-1 and CRU E.The purpose of this application is to amend the previous Site Plan Approval to reflect the existing conditions and release the remaining securities tied to the changes that were not advanced.There is no proposed construction as part of this application.
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.
- Meta Growth CorpSM30713 · 13 October 2020 · “85 Ellesmere Rd”
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 21
10 lobbied · 44 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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 | 10 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 44 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| 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.