The Goodwood Residence @ Bangsar South — Kerinchi, Kuala Lumpur

Six things worth knowing before anything else

Four of the six are good news or neutral. Two are traps that are already circulating. All six come straight off the government record or the developer’s own material.

Layouts, and the sizes nobody publishes

Ten type codes are confirmed from the developer’s own content management system. Not one built-up area, bedroom count, bathroom count or car-park allocation is published for any of them, by any source reached. This page prints the codes and the range, and refuses to manufacture a size table.

No built-up area, bedroom count, bathroom count or car-park allocation is published for any one of the ten type codes, by any source reached. No price per square foot is published here either: pairing the registry minimum with the smallest built-up and the registry maximum with the largest is an assumption no source supports, and the register’s area figure is itself defective. Take your area from your own sale and purchase agreement and its Schedule H plan, and from nowhere else.

The developer’s own images, captioned honestly

A further caution on the developer’s own media: the 360-degree aerial tour embedded on The Goodwood Residence’s page at uoaproperty.com has the iframe title Laurel Residence 360 View — a different project by the same licensee. The developer’s own project page is serving another project’s aerial tour, so it is not used here.

Location, and the distances nobody publishes

No street address is filed for this project. The register prints none, the developer gives the address as simply Bangsar South, and one portal adds Kerinchi with no street. So the location proof on this page is the register’s own filed coordinates — which matters more than usual here, because no DBKL plan-approval reference exists for this project anywhere.

Residensi Laman Permai — the filed statutory particulars, phase 10697-3

There is no publicly reachable filed advertisement block for this project: no HIMS brochure exists for phase 10697-3, and neither UOA website carries a statutory or APDL block at all — uoa.com.my has no APDL, terms or notice-to-purchasers page on its own sitemap, and uoaproperty.com has exactly four pages in its content management system, none of them statutory, with its footer link labelled Notice to purchasers pointing back at a page about e-signing an SPA. So the table below is built from the KPKT TEDUH government register, which is the primary source for this project.

Publish the suffix exactly as the register prints it: the permit is (P), not the (A) or (N) pair seen on other schemes. The register separately files an earlier, phase-suffixed number 10697-3/08-2021/0707(P) inside its LICENCE records, valid 02/08/2019 to 01/08/2021, status Tamat — that is not the licence and is not published as one here.

The filed Unit Selling Price band above is the KPKT TEDUH registry band for registered phase 10697-3. It is marketing information. It is not a price list, it is not a quotation and it is not an offer. The figure that governs what you pay is the price list and the sale and purchase agreement.

An approved delivery extension that went unused — and it reads in the developer’s favour

The register files pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya on this phase: the delivery period was extended from 36 to 42 months, moving the vacant-possession date measured from the first SPA of 9 August 2019 from 9 August 2022 to 9 February 2023. That is the sixth approved extension in a row this series has found. It is also the first that did not become a late handover. The filed CCC is 6 April 2022 — about four months before the original deadline and about ten months before the revised one. Both comparisons are my arithmetic on the register’s own dates. Two honest halves, and both belong here: the extension existed and appears in no other source — not either UOA page, not the portal, not either brochure — so for anyone who bought on the first SPA the Schedule H liquidated-damages clock ran to February 2023, not August 2022; and the developer obtained an extension it then did not need and delivered ahead of the original date, which is a point in its favour that only the government register records.

The registered name and the marketing name share no words

The filing reads Residensi Laman Permai. The marketing name is The Goodwood Residence, Bangsar South. A buyer, solicitor or bank searching the register for Goodwood will not find this scheme. Treat the name on the strata title and the SPA front page as a live question — no source reached shows either document, so this page does not state which name is on the title. Note also that the register is capable of doing it the other way: the sibling phase on this same licence is filed as Residensi Laurel, Bangsar Selatan, locality and all.

The licence mix-up to warn clients about

One portal prints developer licence 20216/01-2029/1455(A) and advertising permit 20216-1/01-2026/0903(R)-(S) on its page for this project. Those serials belong to a different Goodwood Residence in Pulau Pinang — 260 units, 35 storeys, Daerah Barat Daya, licensed to Definite Harmony Development Sdn Bhd — verified against that licence’s own register records. A third Goodwood exists as well: GOODWOOD ESTATES SDN. BHD., a licensed developer in Perak. Anyone copying the numbers off that portal page is publishing a Penang company’s licence on a Kuala Lumpur project. The correct numbers are in the table above. Separately, never read the licence’s 2028 expiry as the permit’s: this project’s APDL lapsed on 18 August 2022, which on a completed, CCC-issued scheme is ordinary and not a red flag — but it must be stated correctly.

No DBKL plan-approval reference exists for this project anywhere

On a Kuala Lumpur project the plan-approval file number is the usual location proof, and here it could not be recovered. The register record for 10697-3 has no approving-authority field and no plan-approval field at all; no statutory advertisement document exists in HIMS under this licence in any path form tried; and neither UOA website carries a statutory block. Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur is the planning authority for the Federal Territory, but no document reached names it for this project. So the location proof here is the register’s own coordinates, 3.109480 N and 101.665120 E, together with Daerah: Kuala Lumpur and Negeri: Wp Kuala Lumpur. No DBKL file number is invented on this page.

Three register fields on this record are defective, and are named rather than copied

Bedrooms are filed as 0 and bathrooms as 0 on a 947 to 2,002 sq ft apartment — nulls filed as zeros. Area is filed as 2,002 and summarised as 2,002 mps, that is square metres, which would make every unit a 21,550 sq ft apartment; it is a square-foot figure wearing a square-metre label, and it is the largest marketed built-up applied to all 678 units at once. And the vacant-possession date is blank on a record that simultaneously says 100% complete with a CCC dated 6 April 2022 — the field is unfilled, so do not read it as no vacant possession having occurred.

Foreign buyers — the honest answer is partly, and the split is the finding

Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory apply a minimum purchase price of RM1,000,000 per unit for a foreign buyer, with State Authority consent, and EPU consent where it applies. That threshold comes from a 2026 foreigner guide that cites no statute or gazette reference, so treat it as the prevailing policy figure and have it confirmed. Now the filed band: RM835,810 to RM1,801,960. The maximum clears the RM1,000,000 floor, so some units here do qualify — unlike every other Kuala Lumpur project in this series so far. The minimum does not, so the cheapest filed units in the same tower are out of reach. How many units fall on each side of RM1,000,000 is not published by any source: the register files one single component row for all 678 units with one minimum and one maximum, and there is no per-type price schedule anywhere. This page does not imply a count, and it does not round the answer into a yes or a no. The comparison against RM1,000,000 is my arithmetic; the price figures are the register’s.

All 678 units are HDA Schedule H — the clean positive on this project

One component row, Pangsapuri Suite, Jadual H, under a live developer’s licence and its own APDL. No SOHO, no SOFO, no office suite and no studio-office parcel is in the filing, and none is in any marketing source either. No retail lot and no commercial parcel is filed or marketed inside the scheme. So all 678 units are HDA-licensed Schedule H strata housing accommodation, with a housing development account and statutory liquidated damages — and there is nothing to split, because 678 of 678 are covered. On a suite-apartment product that is worth saying plainly.

One portal price figure, recorded as a portal figure

One portal publishes a from figure of RM1,131,800 for this project. It sits above the filed registry minimum of RM835,810, so it is recordable — and it is recorded here as exactly what it is: a portal figure, not a developer price list and not a filed statutory figure. The project has had its CCC since April 2022, so a current portal figure is remaining-stock or resale, not a launch floor. Nothing on this page nets off anything.

What this page does not publish, and why

As standing policy on every project page on this site, and on this project specifically: no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera figure, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or ROI projection is published here, ever. Only the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band above, labelled, and one clearly labelled portal figure that sits above the filed minimum. One trap avoided while reading the register: the component field peratus on this record is the construction-progress percentage, 100.00 — it is not a Bumiputera quota and not a concession of any kind. No Diskaun Bumiputera field exists in any source reached, so there is nothing withheld on that head.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Statutory and legal: the DBKL plan-approval reference and the approving authority as a filed field; the lot, PT, mukim and seksyen for this phase; the project’s own land area; the lease term, commencement date and expiry year behind the word leasehold; any restriction in interest; the chargee bank; the licensee’s company registration number; any joint venture, land vendor or equity split; whether the strata title and SPA read Residensi Laman Permai or The Goodwood Residence; and any Bumiputera unit quota. The product: built-up, bedrooms, bathrooms and car-park bays for every one of the ten type codes; how many units fall above and below the RM1,000,000 foreign-buyer floor; total car-park bays, per-unit allocation, visitor bays and EV provision; the number of blocks, towers and lobbies, and therefore the total lift count; the level each facility sits on; whether there is a gymnasium, a swimming pool as such, a surau, retail at ground level or any security tier; maintenance and sinking-fund rates; ceiling heights, floor finishes and air-conditioning provision; the architect, interior designer, landscape consultant and main contractor; the plot ratio; the actual vacant-possession date delivered; and every distance listed in the location section above. Ask me and I will put any of these to Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd in writing.

Questions buyers actually ask about The Goodwood Residence

The rest of Bangsar South, read the same way

Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the KPKT TEDUH project record for registered phase 10697-3 and the sibling records 10697-1, 10697-2 and 10697-4, the KPKT developer register, the GreenRE public register, UOA’s two websites and their own content management system records, the developer’s two brochure PDFs, and one named portal, all read on 8 October 2026. · Marketing information, not an offer.