lobbyTO

Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)

Development application 21 236578 STE 10 SA

147 Spadina Ave

Ward 10 · Ausma MalikDataset pageCity application pageReport an error on this page
Status
Under Review
In progress
Submitted
10 November 2021
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
5
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
29
6 meetings · 5 offices

Application record

Type
Site Plan Approval (SA)
Addresses
147 Spadina Ave
Ward
Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
Submitted
10 November 2021
Status
Under Review
Outcome recorded
In progress
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
223 units; 434 m² gross floor area
Related file
21 208078 STE 10 OZ

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

Description

Site plan approval application to redevelop the site with a 25-storey mixed-use building with a height of 79.8 metres (85.8 including the mechanical penthouse). A non-residential gross floor area of 433.6 square metres is proposed along with 223 residential units. This application is being reviewed in conjunction with an application to Amend the Zoning By-law, file No. 21-208078 STE 10 OZ

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

5 linked registrations · 29 communications · 6 meetings · 5 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 6 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Ausma MalikCouncillor staff14417 October 2023
Office of Councillor Cressy, Ward 10Councillor staff8222 March 2022
Ward 11 University-RosedaleMember of council3020 October 2022
Ausma MalikMember of council2011 January 2023
Dianne SaxeCouncillor staff108 June 2023
Mike ColleCouncillor staff105 October 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.

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 10

66 lobbied · 165 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=5
  • Matched, unlobbied100% n=11

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied0%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied3%
  • Matched, unlobbied2%

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 10: 66 lobbied and 165 matched unlobbied applications in 37 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied66—100% (n=5)0%3%0.05
Matched, unlobbied165—100% (n=11)0%2%0.04
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.