lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 18 149431 STE 30 SA

1151 Queen St E

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
26 April 2018
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
1
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
112
0 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
1151 Queen St E
Ward
Ward 14 · Paula Fletcher
Submitted
26 April 2018
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
47 units
Related file
18 149422 STE 30 OZ

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

Description

Site plan application for a 6-storey (20 metres plus a 3.6 metre mechanical penthouse) mixed-use building containing 47 rental dwelling 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

1 linked registration · 112 communications · 0 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
  • Office of Councillor Fletcher, Ward 1488
  • Paula Fletcher15
  • Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth4
  • Paula Fletcher3
  • Councillor Fletcher, Ward 141
  • Office of Councillor Fletcher, Ward 14Ward1
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Office of Councillor Fletcher, Ward 14Councillor staff8807 September 2022
Paula FletcherCouncillor staff15013 December 2023
Ward 14 Toronto-DanforthMember of council406 September 2022
Paula FletcherMember of council3013 December 2023
Councillor Fletcher, Ward 14Councillor staff1027 October 2020
Office of Councillor Fletcher, Ward 14WardCouncillor staff1013 July 2020

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 14

17 lobbied · 35 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

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 14: 17 lobbied and 35 matched unlobbied applications in 11 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied17Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied35Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
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.