AMARA RESIDENCES @ Ara Damansara 30775-1 — Ara Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, SELANGOR: the KPKT register shows an APPROVED +15-MONTH EXTENSION, so contractual vacant possession moved from 8 Apr 2028 to 8 JULY 2029 — and the RM270,000 in the register’s band is a STATE-CONTROLLED LPHS PRICE for 42 of 412 units, not an entry price. The open-market floor is RM574,200

Why this page exists when the project already has a developer website that is mostly right

Unusually for this series, the developer’s own statutory panel is correct. Licence, permit, chargee, plan reference, approving authority, tenure, restriction in interest, unit split and the price band to the sen — amara-residences.com gets all of it right, and it publishes the advertising permit that its own filed advertisement placeholders. So the whole developer-data-strip family of faults this site normally catches cannot arise here, and this page says so. What is left is four things the developer does not say, one thing its gallery does, and one figure that would be misread by every reader who met it alone.

The type schedule — one type is filed, the rest is marketing, and the two ranges do reconcile

Start with the explanation, because without it the figures look like a contradiction. The filed range of 630–1,230 sq ft is the MAIN PARCEL. The marketed range of 655–1,272 sq ft is the main parcel PLUS an accessory parcel of +25, 54, 62 and 42 sq ft. Both are correct. They measure different things. Only the filed one is statutory, and this page does not average them. An accessory parcel is a strata accessory lot. It is not a floor, it is not necessarily enclosed, and the filing assigns it no area at all. Then the limits. The filed statutory schedule details exactly ONE type out of at least four — Type B/B1, 880 sq ft, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, with a complete sanitary and electrical list. No other type has a filed fixture schedule, no type code appears in any filing, and NO per-type unit count or per-type price exists on any surface, so no price per square foot, no availability and no mix percentage can be computed for anything — and none is invented here.

What is NOT filed in this section, precisely. No type code appears in any filed document. No per-type built-up is filed except Type B/B1 at 880 sq ft — the filing gives overall bounds of 630–1,230 sq ft for the 370 open-market units and a single 550 sq ft figure for the 42 LPHS units. No per-type unit count and no per-type price exists on any surface, so no price per square foot, no availability figure and no mix percentage can be derived, and none is published here. No bedroom or bathroom count is filed for any type except B/B1, and the register’s own bilik: 1, 2, 3, 4 and tandas: 1, 2, 3 include a 1-bedroom, 1-bathroom configuration that no marketing source lists. No Sinki Dapur and no Kadar Bayaran schedule appears even for B/B1. Figures refused by name: the microsite’s three “Renovation Floor” pairs, two of which sum above the filed maximum; EdgeProp’s 624 sq ft and Type A2 635 sq ft; and one aggregator’s 54 / 80 / 112 / 130 m², whose top converts to about 1,399 sq ft. No figure from the sibling schemes MYARA PARK or ARATRE’ RESIDENCES appears anywhere in this section. The real schedule is in the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery. Nothing here is a price list, a quotation or an offer.

Why there are no renders on this page

No images from the developer’s marketing are reproduced here. A render is drawn to sell. It is not something the developer is contractually bound to build, and there is nothing in it you can check against a document.

Ask for these three in writing instead: the approved building plan, the unit layout with its stated built-up area, and the specification schedule attached to the sale and purchase agreement. Those bind the developer. A render does not.

Ara Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, SELANGOR — the cleanest address set in this series

This is worth saying first, because it is unusual. No source puts this project in the wrong state, the wrong district or the wrong city. After one project where five sources including the developer put a Daerah Petaling scheme in Kuala Lumpur, another where a Kuala Lumpur postcode sits on a Selangor township, and another with six address forms, four streets, two postcodes and three wrong districts, every surface here agrees: Ara Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Selangor. And the approving authority is settled by the strong route rather than a fallback: the building-plan reference MBPJ/120100/T/P10/869/2024 appears in both filed documents, MBPJ is printed separately as the Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan, and MBPJ has jurisdiction only inside Petaling Jaya. So: Petaling Jaya → Daerah Petaling → Selangor → Zone 1 → a RM2,000,000 foreign-buyer floor, which is DOUBLE the Kuala Lumpur figure. And one trap is live here and must be named: the licensee’s registered office and its register business address are BOTH in PENANG, 350 km away. Never read a locality, a district or a postcode off this licensee’s register record.

AMARA RESIDENCES, KPKT project 30775-1 — the filed statutory record, field by field

This project has a full statutory record, which is not something this series can always say. A registered scheme, a current licence, a current advertising permit, two filed advertisements, a filed price band that matches the register to the sen, a named chargee, a plan-approval reference and a contractual delivery schedule. Read from the public KPKT TEDUH register on 13 October 2026, with six developer-swasta search forms run against a same-session positive control, the projek-swasta serials walked, and both filed HIMS documents read separately. The table is what the register and the filings print. Everything after the table is what they do not.

Read 13 October 2026 from the public KPKT TEDUH register — licensee record for developer code 30775 and project record 30775-1 — and from both filed HIMS advertisements, read separately. Two things about searching this register that will save a client a wasted afternoon. FIRST: q=AMARA returns ZERO, even though the scheme IS registered under the name AMARA RESIDENCES. The q= endpoint matches developer names only, and no company in this group has “Amara” in its name — the licensee is named after the locality syllable Ara. Against a same-session positive control of q=EXSIM = 16, that zero is the endpoint behaving as designed, not a missing record. So search by developer code 30775, by project code 30775-1, or by the licensee name LUSTER ARA. SECOND: the group’s three licensees need three different search strings — q=PUNCAKDANA = 1, q=PD ARA = 1, q=LUSTER = 1, and q=PUNCAK returns fifteen licensees none of which is PD Ara, because “PD ARA” contains no “Puncak”. No single brand word finds the set. And one honest diff inside the filings themselves. The filed brochure names the developer LUSTER ARA SDN. BHD. The filed NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT names it LUSTER SDN. BHD. — one word short of the licensee, with the same registration number, inside a document stamped IKLAN INI DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA, and every other statutory field in the two documents is identical. Two caveats belong with that finding and are printed with it: the registration number in the same block is the correct one, and the difference is a single word read off a machine-transcribed PDF. q=LUSTER returns exactly one licensee and it is LUSTER ARA; no LUSTER SDN. BHD. holds a developer licence. It is recorded; the caveats are attached; and nothing is alleged about anybody’s conduct. Register statuses change. A permit current today lapses — this one has 141 days left — and a percentage built today is a snapshot of a 7(f) report. Verify the register yourself on the day you decide anything, by developer code 30775 and project code 30775-1. Nothing in this table is a price list, a quotation or an offer.

The one line that matters most in this table is in the delivery column, and it is published by nobody else: pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, +15 bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 51 bulan — contractual vacant possession 8 April 2028 becomes 8 JULY 2029. And the second line that matters most is in the price column: the register’s RM270,000 minimum is a Selangor state-controlled LPHS price for 42 of 412 units, and the open-market floor is RM574,200. Both are read straight off the filed record. Neither appears on the developer’s website, on either portal, in either filed advertisement, or in the licensee’s listed parent’s audited Annual Report 2025.

The +15-month extension, in full — and the fair reading of it

The headline finding on this project is one register field, and it is worth setting out completely because no other source carries it. Project 30775-1 records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 15 bulan and tempohPembinaanBaharu: 51 bulan. The contract is Schedule H with tempohAsal: 36 Bulan, and the delivery clock under a Schedule H runs from the date of the first sale and purchase agreement, which the register gives as 8 April 2025. So contractual vacant possession was 8 April 2028 and, with the approved extension, it is 8 JULY 2029. That is the governing date and nothing else is. Now the fair reading, which matters as much as the finding and is the reason this entry is this long. FIRST: the extension is NOT consumed. The register shows komponen.peratus: 23.42, ccc: “-” and vp: “-” — the building is about a quarter built, there is no CCC and there is no vacant possession, so the revised date has not been missed. SECOND, and this page looks for it on every project: the register does NOT flag this scheme Lewat. status.keseluruhan reads Lancar. I checked for Lewat specifically, because it is the sharpest delivery finding available anywhere in this series, and it is not there. Saying so plainly is part of being honest about dates. THIRD: the developer’s live sales surface is consistent with the revised date. The microsite and the e-brochure both print June 2029, which is within about a month of 8 July 2029. That is a credit and it is given here. But it nowhere says there was an extension, nowhere gives the original date, and its own filed advertisement contradicts it by twenty months. FOURTH, the arithmetic, both ways, because no construction commencement date exists anywhere and therefore no float test can be run in either direction. Against the REVISED 51-month programme: 8 April 2025 to 13 October 2026 is 18.2 months, or 35.6% elapsed, against 23.42% built. Against the ORIGINAL 36-month programme: 50.5% elapsed against 23.42% built. (Both are my own arithmetic on filed dates and the register’s own percentage.) The second reading is materially behind and is consistent with why an extension was needed; the first is modestly behind. Both are printed and nothing is predicted. FIFTH, the six dates, and what a buyer should do with them. November 2027 — in both filed documents, and five months before even the original contractual date, so it was never achievable and it is now twenty months stale. 8 April 2028 — the original contractual date, superseded. Q4 2028 — one aggregator, matching nothing filed. June 2029 — the developer’s own live figure. 2029 — EdgeProp’s new-launch record, year only, while its own condo record for the same id says N/A. 8 July 2029 — the register’s revised contractual date, which governs. And the licensee’s listed parent’s audited Annual Report 2025, released 30 April 2026, describes the project, reports that it has begun contributing to revenue, and gives NO date, no revised date, no extension and no progress figure at all. That is the second time in this series that an audited annual report has been the non-discloser. What to do with it: ask for the contractual vacant possession date as it will appear in your own SPA, in writing, and ask what liquidated and ascertained damages formula applies and from which date. The date in your contract is the only date that can be enforced, and it is not any of the six marketing dates above. One source that would normally help was unavailable: the third-party publisher this series has used for extension arithmetic on four prior projects is robots-disallowed on this project’s URL form. So the KPKT register is the only source on earth that discloses the +15 months, and that is the single most valuable thing this page carries.

What RM270,000 actually is — and why the open-market floor is RM574,200

If you read one paragraph on this page, read this one. The KPKT register’s price band for 30775-1 reads RM270,000.00 to RM1,136,000.00. That band is arithmetically perfect and structurally misleading, and the filed advertisement explains exactly why — openly, in two separately labelled rows. Jenis Pangsapuri Servis Harga Bebas — 370 units, 630kps to 1,230kps, RM574,200.00 (minimum) to RM1,136,000.00 (maximum). That is the open market. Jenis Pangsapuri Servis Harga Mampu Milik (LPHS) — 42 units, Keluasan Unit: 550kps, Harga Seunit: RM270,000.00. That is a Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor controlled price: a figure set by the Selangor state housing board for affordable stock, on 42 of the 412 homes. So the RM270,000 is a STATE-CONTROLLED AFFORDABLE PRICE. It is not a market price. It is not an opening price for the scheme. Nothing about it is available to an open-market buyer, and this page will not print “from RM270,000” for Amara Residences in any form. THE OPEN-MARKET FLOOR IS RM574,200.00. Independent corroboration, from a Selangor state government list rather than from a portal. LPHS Selangor’s own Senarai Projek Hartanah Harga Kawalan Negeri Selangor (Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan / SOHO / SOVO / SOFO Mampu Milik), updated 10 September 2026, carries two other Bandar Petaling Jaya serviced-apartment schemes at exactly RM270,000 — PANGSAPURI PERKHIDMATAN RESIDENSI NEWURBAN / NEW URBAN SDN BHD, and PANGSAPURI PERKHIDMATAN RESIDENSI SENURI / ANGKASA SENURI SDN. BHD. That independently establishes RM270,000 as the state-set controlled price for this product in this bandar, and not as Amara’s entry price. Amara is not on that list, and that is not evidence of anything about it: the list appears to enumerate controlled-price stock open for application, so absence most likely means these 42 units have not been released through the state channel. The list is not a register of filings and it is not read as one here. Two credits belong in this entry. FIRST: the register’s band matches the filing to the sen at both ends. No splice. This series has caught spliced registry bands on four prior records, where a register band was assembled from different filed generations; here the register’s minimum is the filing’s LPHS price and its maximum is the filing’s open-market maximum, exactly, and there is only one filed generation for it to be spliced from. SECOND: one consumer source gets the entry price right. EdgeProp’s new-launch record prints Starting from RM 574,200 — the filed statutory open-market minimum, to the sen. It is the only consumer source on this project that does, and it is credited by name. And one bar on the 42 units that has nothing to do with price. No source — not the filing, not the register, not LPHS’s own September 2026 list, not the microsite — states the eligibility criteria, the application channel, the quota rules, the moratorium or the resale restrictions that attach to LPHS stock. So this page does not describe those 42 units as available and does not imply that an open-market buyer or a foreign buyer can acquire one. Everything in this entry is filed or public-registry data, always labelled as such, and it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Foreign buyers — zero of 412 clear the floor, while every title test runs the buyer’s way

This project produces the cleanest foreign-buyer answer in the series, and it needs both halves or it is misleading. THE PRICE HALF, FIRST, BECAUSE IT CLOSES THE QUESTION. Daerah Petaling is SELANGOR ZONE 1, where the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM2,000,000, for strata title and gated landed-strata property. That is DOUBLE the Kuala Lumpur and Federal Territory figure of RM1,000,000, which is why getting the state right on this page matters. The dearest unit in the entire filed scheme is RM1,136,000.00, which is 56.80% of the floor. The open-market minimum of RM574,200.00 is 28.71%. The LPHS price of RM270,000.00 is 13.50%. (My own division of filed figures by the consensus floor.) So NOT ONE of the 412 units reaches the threshold, and not one source anywhere says so. THE TITLE HALF, AND THIS IS THE UNUSUAL PART. Both of the bars this series normally finds are ABSENT, and the question runs the buyer’s way on every leg. (1) Jadual H plus a -(S) permit tail means the parcels are strata title, and Selangor permits strata and landed-strata acquisition by foreigners in Zone 1 — it is individual-title landed property that is barred. So the title-type bar that closed four other projects on this site does not apply here. (2) The filed advertisement prints Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada. A filed Sekatan Kepentingan is the strongest single foreign-buyer signal this series reads, and it closed four prior projects regardless of price; here the filing prints Tiada — none — so no State Authority consent requirement is filed. The word is quoted rather than paraphrased, because one dropped word inverts the clause entirely. (3) The tenure is Pegangan Bebas, freehold, so there is no lease-term question and no consent-on-renewal question. THE VERDICT, IN THAT ORDER: the title is as clean as this series has seen, and the price closes the door on all 412 units. Never let “strata, freehold, no restriction” be read as “a foreigner can buy here.” Three caveats, and one of them is a limitation on this page rather than on the project. FIRST: the RM2,000,000 figure is a three-source consensus, including IQI’s own published guide. PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so a buyer should confirm the current figure with Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor before relying on it, and should read the restriction in interest off a TITLE SEARCH rather than off an advertisement. SECOND: the landed-strata permission is conditioned elsewhere on the scheme being gated and guarded, and on this project there is no evidence either way — the filed documents carry no facilities or security schedule at all, and NEITHER the microsite’s NOR the e-brochure’s facility list contains a single security item. The only security claim anywhere is an aggregator tag, which is not evidence. The point is moot on price, but it is recorded rather than glossed. THIRD: the 42 LPHS units are state controlled-price stock whose eligibility rules nobody publishes, so nothing in this entry should be read as suggesting a foreign buyer could acquire one.

Not published, therefore not on this page — the twenty-nine questions nobody answers

Every page on this site carries this list, because what is missing from a project’s public record is as material as what is in it. On this project the register and the filings are unusually complete, which makes the remaining gaps specific and nameable rather than general. 1. Who owns the other 49.9% of LUSTER ARA SDN. BHD. — the audited corporate-structure chart names the 50.1% holder and does not name the rest. 2. The number of storeys — two figures, nine floors apart. 3. The number of blocks or towers. 4. The car park — no count, no allocation per type, no visitor bays, no levels, on any surface. 5. The lot or PT number and the title number — so ask for a title search. 6. The mukim, and probably Bandar Petaling Jaya, unconfirmed for this site. 7. The category of land use on the title — “commercial freehold” appears in one 2022 news report and in no filed document. 8. The project’s street address — only the office and sales-gallery street is filed. 9. A land area in any FILED document — the 2.3609 acres comes from a Bursa land announcement. 10. Whether the 412 homes occupy the whole parcel, or how much the retail takes. 11. The retail component’s size, unit count, tenure, price, HDA status or whether it will ever be registered. 12. A gross floor area figure — none exists, from anyone. 13. A GDV figure — none exists, including from the audited parent. 14. The contractor, the architect, the engineer and the quantity surveyor — not one is named anywhere, and the construction-record route is closed in a way that would mislead if followed. 15. Any commencement date for construction, so no float test can be run. 16. Per-type unit counts and per-type prices, and therefore any price per square foot. 17. Bedrooms, bathrooms and fixtures for every type but one. 18. The LPHS units’ eligibility criteria, application channel, quota, moratorium and resale restrictions. 19. Why the register’s 20 storeys and the developer’s Level 29 disagree. 20. Any explanation of the +15-month extension — not what caused it, not when it was approved, not by whom; only that it exists. 21. Why the filed advertisement prints November 2027. 22. What the five award logos on the developer’s website actually are. 23. Whether the Myara Park images in Amara’s own gallery are placeholders, a deliberate quality reference or an error — no source addresses it. 24. A service charge or sinking-fund rate — none published, and none borrowed from another project. 25. Any security arrangement. 26. An ethnic-allocation field of any kind — and here the honest answer is not the usual one: that field does not appear on ANY surface for this project. It is not withheld; it is absent. 27. The licensee’s directors. 28. Take-up — no Baki Unit field is filed on this record and no source states a take-up figure, which also means the two Baki Unit traps this series watches for do not arise here at all. 29. The CCC and the VP — ccc: “-”, vp: “-”, at 23.42% built. And one absence about the filing itself: IKLAN_BROSUR_02.pdf returns a 404 and no P45-form record exists for this project, so there is NO cross-generation diff available. That is reported as an absence, not as a check that was skipped. The same-generation diff IS available — brochure against newspaper advertisement — and it is not clean: see the note under the table. Louis Koh will ask the developer for every item on this list and will tell you which answers came back on paper.

The licensed-versus-marketed gap on this project is the retail podium

This site asks one question of every mixed scheme: where did the gap between what is licensed and what is marketed go? On this project it has a precise answer. The licensee’s own listed parent, in its audited Annual Report 2025, calls this “the high-rise serviced apartment and integrated retail development in Ara Damansara, Selangor”, and the microsite calls it a “Freehold mixed development (residential with convenience retail)”. The advertising and sales permit covers 412 residential units and nothing else. The serial walk ends at -1, jumlahProjek: 1 and bilanganProjek: 1 both read one, and there is no second registration. So the retail component has NO KPKT developer registration, NO advertising and sales permit, NO filed price and NO stated Housing Development Act status. The plain-language consequence, which is what a buyer actually needs: a retail unit in this development would get no Schedule G or Schedule H statutory contract, no HDA liquidated-damages formula for late delivery, no section 7A housing development account holding the money, no statutory defect liability period, and no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims route. Those protections attach to licensed housing accommodation. They do not attach to an unregistered commercial component. And all 412 residential units ARE licensed, which is the other half of the sentence and must be said in the same breath. If you are buying a home here, you are buying inside the licensed scheme, with a Schedule H contract, a current permit and a housing development account. If anybody offers you a shop lot, a kiosk or a retail unit in this development, that is a different transaction with different law behind it, and the first question is whether it has its own KPKT registration. No source states the retail’s size, its unit count, its tenure or its price. One 2022 news report describes the land itself as “commercial freehold”, which would be consistent with a Pangsapuri Servis and would bear on assessment rates, utility tariffs and financing — but NO filed document states the category of land use, so this page prints it as an open question for a title search and not as a fact. And it does not set Jadual H against “commercial title” as if the two were in tension: the filing’s Schedule H and the register’s Pangsapuri Servis are what govern the homes.

Why this page is tagged Condo & Serviced Apartment and New Launch, and not Commercial

The primary tag is Condo & Serviced Apartment, and it is filed rather than inferred. Jenis Bangunan in both filed advertisements reads Pangsapuri Servis, and the register’s own component row says the same. The filed building type is what this site tags. The secondary tag is New Launch, and on this project it is correct — with one wording rule attached. The licence is current, the advertising permit is current, the first SPA was signed on 8 April 2025, the register reads Lancar, and the scheme is 23.42% built and selling. So the honest framing is: launched in 2025, under construction now, contractual vacant possession 8 July 2029. What this page does NOT say is “newly launched”. The first sale was eighteen months ago and a quarter of the building is up. A badge implying a fresh release would be wrong, and this series has caught exactly that elsewhere. And a deliberate omission: Commercial is NOT attached, even though three surfaces invite it. The audited annual report says “serviced apartment and integrated retail”; the microsite says “mixed development (residential with convenience retail)”; and one 2022 report calls the land “commercial freehold”. But the product offered to the public is homes, on Jadual H, under an HDA licence and an HDA advertising and sales permit, and the FILED building type is Pangsapuri Servis. Tagging it commercial would tell a reader this is a commercial investment product, which it is not. What the page does instead is state the retail component in the developer’s own words and say that it has no KPKT registration — which is the information the commercial label would have been standing in for. One portal calls the product Hotel/Service Apartment while its own sibling record calls it a mixed-use development; neither matches the filed Pangsapuri Servis, and both are noted rather than adopted.

Green ratings, awards and QLASSIC — none for this project, and the borrows refused by name

There is NO green rating and NO award for AMARA RESIDENCES, and the negative here is unusually strong. The GreenRE certification register was read across all four tiers — Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze — and separately the Bronze CERTIFICATION-ENTRY list. There is no entry for AMARA RESIDENCES, LUSTER ARA SDN. BHD., PD ARA SDN. BHD. or PUNCAKDANA SDN. BHD. in any of them. Why this negative is stronger than usual, in the terms this site uses. Platinum closed cleanly at 95 rows — the sixteenth consecutive consistent run of that tier — so a Platinum no-hit is a genuine clean negative. Gold (130 rows), Silver (141) and Bronze (about 330) all TRUNCATE, so a no-hit there is only “no entry in the reachable portion” and is never reported here as a clean negative. But the decisive read is the Bronze certification-entry list: 332 entries covering 4 April 2024 to 30 March 2026 — EXACTLY the right window for a licence issued 27 May 2024 and a permit issued 4 March 2025 — and NOT ONE of its developer cells contains Luster, Puncakdana, PD Ara, Amara or Myara. On two earlier projects this check had to be published with a limitation attached, because the window was wrong or the list was missing its own rows. Here the window is right and the list is clean. That is the strongest form of this negative available. The Green Building Index register is robots-disallowed and was re-tested today: INCONCLUSIVE, never a negative. No source claims a GBI rating for this project. AND YET THE FILED STATUTORY NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT IS HEADED BANGUNAN “IKONIK DAN HIJAU” — “iconic and green building” — alongside SENI BINA UNGGUL, INSPIRASI URBAN, and the brochure repeats it. A claim in a statutory document is still a claim, and there is nothing behind it: no certification, no provisional rating, no logo, no rating level, no tool code and no registry entry. This page refuses the slogan and names where it is printed, because the page is more trustworthy for addressing it than for omitting it. Credit the other side of that too: the developer makes no certification claim anywhere. This is not the over-claiming this series usually catches; it is a marketing adjective inside a legal document. Now the awards. The microsite carries a heading Award Winning Developer followed by five image placeholders which, to a non-JavaScript fetch, are every one an empty src — no filename, no URL, no alternative text, no title — and NO award name appears in the page text at all. The e-brochure says Award Winning Puncakdana Group, which attaches the claim to the GROUP rather than to the project and still names no award. The project itself has none: no property award, no design award, no sustainability award, and no CIDB QLASSIC score — which is the one award a construction-stage scheme can genuinely hold. The audited Annual Report 2025 names no award for this project or this subsidiary either. So the honest line: the developer’s own material claims to be award-winning and names no award, and the project has none. Five logos that cannot be read are LESS evidence than a bare certification logo, which this site already refuses. TWELVE GreenRE rows were tested and refused, and the two most seductive are named here because they are the easiest borrows available on this project. MAYA ARA RESIDENCES (Gold, active, 5 January 2026, residential tool) and Ara Bloc Residences (Gold, active, 25 September 2025, residential tool), BOTH held by SIME DARBY PROPERTY (ARA DAMANSARA) SDN. BHD. — which is one of the two companies that SOLD Amara’s site. They match on vendor, locality, product type and rating tool all at once, which makes them the sharpest decoy shape this series has recorded. Both are refused: they are a different licensee’s schemes. Also refused by name: DME HUB @ ARA DAMANSARA (Silver provisional, and a NON-RESIDENTIAL tool, so not a residential rating at all) · Amaya Residences (Residensi Damansara Avenue 1) (Silver provisional — one letter from Amara, in a different township, and already a separate page on this site, which is exactly how such a borrow goes unnoticed) · Arcuz Kelana Jaya · Plaza @ Kelana · THE ASCENT @ PARADIGM PJ · ZENIA (Phase 1A) and (1B) · Myra Idaman (against this project’s gallery captions reading Myara — one letter, two unrelated companies) · Aetas Damansara and Aetas Seputeh · Atwater Office Tower A and B · Menara Livingston · and every other row matching merely on Damansara, Subang, Kelana or Sime Darby. Every one is a different licensee, and several are non-residential ratings. NOT ONE of them appears on this page as a credential, and a sibling’s or a group’s award is never a project award.

Imagery: this page carries none, and here is exactly why

This is the fifth page in this series to ship with zero images rather than caption a guess, and on this project the reason is itself one of the findings. REASON ONE: there is nothing addressable to grade, and the confirmed grade is structurally unavailable. Every content image on amara-residences.com — the gallery, the facilities, the layouts, even the five award logos — is served with an EMPTY src to a non-JavaScript fetch. The entire site yields exactly TWO addressable image URLs: a logo and a back-to-top arrow. You cannot grade an image you cannot address. And the site is not WordPress — a content-system media query returns an error, and the site serves a static image folder — so there is no content-system title and no content-system date to read, which means the confirmed grade this site requires for a captioned subject cannot be reached at all on this host. A reachability probe was run with controls twice, across two file extensions, using plausible continuations of real filenames: it confirms that the two chrome assets exist and establishes NO SUBJECT for anything. On this host, reachability is worthless. REASON TWO, AND IT IS THE ONE THAT SETTLES IT: ELEVEN OF THE TWENTY-TWO GALLERY CAPTIONS NAME A DIFFERENT PROJECT. They read Myara Park Suites Lobby, Myara Park Suites Stylish Living Room, Room, Bedroom three times, Bathroom twice, Myara Park Residence Lobby, Living Room and Kitchen. MYARA PARK is a real, separate, COMPLETED registered scheme: KPKT 30041-1, licensee PD ARA SDN. BHD., 255 units, CCC 10 February 2026, vacant possession 12 March 2026 — and it is 1.25 km away by its own filed coordinates. So on the developer’s own website, EVERY interior image is of a different building, by a different licensee, finished in 2026, presented inside an unbuilt 412-unit scheme’s gallery. Nothing on the site discloses this. Nothing in this series matches it: elsewhere a developer has shared a progress gallery between two of its OWN schemes; here the captions openly name a different licensee’s completed project and nobody flags it. The remaining eleven Amara-captioned items are facility renders of an unbuilt building — Residence Entrance, Garden Pavilion, Kid’s Playground twice, Sky Lounge, Sky Infinity Pool twice, Sky Gymnasium twice, Residence Drop Off, Courtyard Garden. Every one is undated, the scheme is 23.42% built with no CCC and no VP, and there is a live storey contradiction of nine floors — which is precisely the circumstance in which an undated render may depict a building that will not be built. Even with filenames captured, those could reach only a caption-published grade, never confirmed. Five image URLs from one aggregator DO exist and carry alternative text naming the project. All five are refused, on four grounds: it is a third-party aggregator rather than the developer, so its alternative text establishes only what that aggregator believes; its own page carries two irreconcilable price ranges, four unit areas that match nothing filed, a completion date that matches nothing filed, and invented delivery statistics for the licensee — it credits it with two completed projects and 600 units delivered when the register says one project with no CCC and no VP — and a source that fabricates that much cannot confer a subject; its filenames are a timestamp plus a hash, so they carry no independent evidence; and three of the five have only the bare project name with no subject at all. No floor plan is addressable either: the one filed plan is inside a HIMS PDF, the microsite’s layout images are empty, and no 360-degree tour exists. So: nothing was uploaded, nothing was substituted, and no stock photograph appears anywhere on this page. A Myara Park image will never appear on it. What would produce real imagery is the developer’s own project folder in the agency system, or a browser pass that captures the JavaScript-loaded filenames — and on any captured set the eleven Myara Park items would still be refused.

Credit where it is due — this developer’s statutory panel is simply correct

This series catches developer websites getting their own statutory particulars wrong often enough that the opposite deserves saying out loud. It has caught a developer publishing six of eight minimum prices BELOW its own filed minimum under a current permit; another a full filed generation stale on two pages; another printing a fabricated licence validity; another printing its advertising permit’s validity in the licence field; and another publishing “price from” figures below its own filed minima. amara-residences.com does none of that. Its statutory panel prints the correct licence number and validity, the correct advertising permit number and validity — which its own filed advertisement PLACEHOLDERS, so the developer’s website is the only place a buyer can read the permit at all — the correct chargee, the correct plan-approval reference, the correct approving authority, the correct tenure, the correct Sekatan Kepentingan, the correct 370/42 unit split and the filed price band TO THE SEN. So the whole family of developer-data-strip findings this site normally publishes cannot occur on this page, and that is stated rather than left as a silence. Its single fault is the completion date, and even that errs in the buyer’s favour — because it is the FILED advertisement, not the website, that carries the unachievable November 2027, while the website’s June 2029 sits within about a month of the revised contractual date. Three further credits belong in the same entry. The permit history is CONTINUOUS: Rekod Lesen Terdahulu is empty and the register shows one permit, so there has never been an unpermitted interval — the exact inverse of a project on this site with a 13½-month gap. Permit 1 PRE-DATES SPA 1 by 35 days, so selling began under a valid permit. And the chronology runs in the right order throughout: land acquired (announced March 2022), building plan approved (2024), licence issued (27 May 2024), advertising permit issued (4 March 2025), first sale (8 April 2025). Nothing ran ahead of its authority — which is not true of every project on this site. Also credited: the register band matches the filing to the sen; the unit split closes on seven surfaces; the developer publishes thirty-two distances in kilometres when five projects in this series publish none; EdgeProp’s “2 to 4 bedrooms; 2 to 3 bathrooms” corroborates the e-brochure exactly; EdgeProp’s Starting from RM 574,200 is the filed open-market minimum to the sen; the register’s and the developer’s permit suffixes AGREE, so the eight-project suffix trap does not arise; the developer makes no green certification claim; and no source puts this project in the wrong state, district or city — the cleanest address set in this series. None of that makes the extension, the LPHS price structure, the storey contradiction or the gallery go away. It means this page states them against a developer that is, on the documents, mostly getting it right.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion information, no incentive-package detail and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source, whatever its provenance — and those six terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. A seventh term is named here for completeness and also appears exactly once, here: Bumiputera. And on this project the honest statement about it is the cleanest possible one: no surface for this project carries an ethnic-allocation field at all — not the filed brochure, not the filed newspaper advertisement, not the register, not the microsite, not the e-brochure, not either portal. So nothing is being withheld under that head, because there is nothing there to withhold, and that is a different statement from withholding a value. Now the price, which on this project needs four separate statements rather than one. STATEMENT ONE: what IS published here, and why each item qualifies. The filed statutory selling price band from the legally filed advertisement particulars — RM574,200.00 to RM1,136,000.00 for the 370 Harga Bebas units, and RM270,000.00 per unit for the 42 Harga Mampu Milik (LPHS) units — because that is the filed sale and purchase price range, which is exactly the class of figure this site is permitted to carry. It is labelled as filed statutory data every time it appears. The public registry band for 30775-1, RM270,000.00 to RM1,136,000.00, labelled as public register data. The Selangor state controlled-price corroboration from LPHS’s own September 2026 list, labelled as a state government list. And the 2022 land price — RM35,000,000 cash for 9,554 m², RM340.33 per square foot of land — which is a transaction between corporate parties disclosed to a stock exchange, labelled as land cost and never as a buyer price. Every one of them carries the same line: not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. STATEMENT TWO, AND IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE ON THIS PAGE: THE RM270,000 IS A STATE-CONTROLLED AFFORDABLE PRICE AND IS NOT AN ENTRY PRICE. It is a filed statutory figure, which is why it is publishable at all, and it covers 42 of 412 units at a price set by the Selangor state housing board. It is not a reduction of anything, it is not an inducement, and it is not what an open-market unit costs. THE OPEN-MARKET FLOOR IS RM574,200. Any page that prints “from RM270,000” for this project without that sentence misleads its reader, and this page states it in both languages and in four separate places so that it cannot be missed. STATEMENT THREE: four kinds of figure are withheld, and the reason differs for each, because a gap with no reason given reads as concealment. (a) One aggregator’s header range, whose lower bound sits BELOW the filed open-market minimum of RM574,200 and ABOVE the LPHS RM270,000 — so it matches NEITHER filed figure. The figure is not recorded. Publisher count: ONE aggregator, not “several sources”; no publisher in either of the two collapsed publisher groups carries a below-minimum figure. (b) A SECOND, irreconcilable range on that same aggregator’s page — its unit table, its questions section and its foreign-ownership section carry a different range from its own header, so the page contradicts itself, and that second range matches no filed figure either. Neither is recorded, and the reason for both is ACCURACY, not a compliance bar. (c) That aggregator’s gross-yield range, occupancy percentage, “market position” and buyer-cost percentages — withheld IN FULL under this agency’s absolute rule on yield and return projections. This page carries no yield figure of any kind. Its “foreign quota 40%” assertion is also not reproduced: it is unsourced, and it concerns a scheme whose entire filed band fails the Selangor Zone 1 floor. (d) An unlabelled numeric pair printed beside the unit table in the developer’s own e-brochure, with no unit of measure, no currency label and no column header. It is unidentifiable — it could be a price per square metre, an instalment, a booking figure or an inducement — and it is not recorded, on accuracy grounds as well as compliance grounds. STATEMENT FOUR: two tests this site normally runs are unavailable, and that is a finding rather than a silence. The GDV test cannot be run: NO gross development value is published for this project by anybody — not the developer, not the press, and not the audited Annual Report 2025, which gives segment figures it attributes to a different development entirely. My own BOUNDING arithmetic on the filed figures is RM223,794,000 to RM431,660,000, and it is a bound rather than a sum, because no per-type quantities are filed. The parent’s RM113.3 million FY2025 property-segment revenue is NOT apportioned to this project, and the microsite’s “gross development value of well over RM1 billion” is a GROUP figure for the Puncakdana group’s commercial diversification and is never allowed to attach to Amara. And the per-type price-per-square-foot test cannot be run either, because the filing gives a category total and a category band and no per-type quantities, so a spliced price per square foot is not available and is not invented. Where a real figure comes from: the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Ask Louis for those, and ask him for the per-type price and quantity schedule, which no public source carries.

How this page was built, and its limits

Everything above is either traced to a named published source or marked as not published. The spine is the public KPKT TEDUH register — licensee record for developer code 30775 and project record 30775-1, read 13 October 2026 — together with both filed HIMS advertisements, read separately. Seven limits are worth stating plainly. FIRST, the search limit, and it is instructive rather than disabling. q=AMARA on the developer index returns ZERO, against a same-session positive control of q=EXSIM = 16, even though the register holds AMARA RESIDENCES as the registered name. The endpoint matches developer names only. The licensee was found through a portal record that names the SPV, then q=LUSTER, which returns exactly one licensee. No brand search, no street search and no township search would have found it. So an address-term or project-term zero on that endpoint is worth nothing, and a client’s own search for “Amara” will fail. Give them the code. SECOND, the filing limit. IKLAN_BROSUR_02.pdf returns a 404 and no P45-form record exists, so there is NO cross-generation diff on this project — reported as an absence, not as a check skipped. A same-session control on the newer path form, run on a sibling licensee, returned a live document, so the path form works and this project simply has no record under it. The same-generation diff IS available and is published above: the brochure and the newspaper advertisement name the developer differently. THIRD, the contractor limit, and it is a new shape. No contractor, architect, engineer or quantity surveyor is named for this project by any source, and the construction-record search form returns an error. Worse than an absence: the only construction announcements on this street belong to SIBLING schemes by RELATED licensees — a piling and strengthening package on a third-party scheme on the same road, and a main-building-works takeover whose 18-storey-plus-11-storey scope matches MYARA PARK’s filed components exactly. Following the street route produces a confidently wrong answer, so it was followed and then refused. The consequence is that no commencement date exists and the float test cannot be run in either direction; the elapsed-versus-built test was run instead, both ways. FOURTH, the green-register limit. Gold, Silver and Bronze all truncate, so a no-hit in those tiers is “no entry in the reachable portion” and is never stated here as a clean negative. Platinum closed cleanly and the Bronze certification-entry list covers exactly the right window and is clean, which is what makes this negative strong. The Green Building Index register is robots-disallowed: inconclusive, never a negative. FIFTH, the geocoding limit. The register’s coordinates are published but unverified against a street, because the reverse-geocoding service is robots-disallowed — inconclusive, not a negative. The coordinates were used for exactly one thing: the 1.25 km separation from MYARA PARK, which compares two filed coordinate pairs and needs no geocoder. SIXTH, the imagery limit, set out in full in its own entry above. Nothing reaches a publishable grade, so this page carries no images at all. SEVENTH, and it is a limit on CERTAINTY rather than on sources. Two things on this project cannot be resolved from any public document and are left unresolved rather than averaged: the storey count (register 20 against the developer’s own Level 29, with the filing silent), and the phasing (Berfasa in the register against all 412 units filed as one undivided component row). The consequence is stated once and clearly: every per-tower, per-block and per-phase figure on this project is a marketing figure. And the discipline this locality demands more than any other on this site. Nine project names circulate in or beside Ara Damansara and eight of them are not this project. Nothing — no figure, no distance, no acreage, no band, no CCC, no VP, no storey count, no delivery credit, no award and no green rating — is carried onto this page from MYARA PARK (PD Ara Sdn Bhd, completed February 2026), ARATRE’ RESIDENCES (Puncakdana Sdn Bhd, completed), ARRA Residence, Andara, Amaya Residences, Amaya Saujana, Maya Ara Residences, Oasis Ara, Myra, or from any Luster Industries development in Penang, Hulu Langat, Sepang or Cybersouth — one of which has a 422-service-apartment-plus-180-affordable shape that is a near-mirror of Amara’s 370/42 and must not be confused with it. Each of those is a different project, with its own licensee or its own page.

Questions a buyer actually asks about AMARA RESIDENCES @ Ara Damansara

Nearby and same-situation pages — each built the same way, and each kept separate from this one

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register (developer code 30775, project record 30775-1, with six search forms and a same-session positive control on each, and the project serials walked), both filed HIMS advertisements, LPHS Selangor’s controlled-price list of 10 September 2026, the licensee’s listed parent’s audited Annual Report 2025 and its 2022 Bursa land-acquisition announcement, the GreenRE register across all four tiers plus the Bronze certification-entry list, the developer’s own microsite and e-brochure, and both EdgeProp records. Marketing information, not an offer. Not a price list, not a quotation. Register statuses change: a permit current today lapses, and a percentage built is a snapshot of one 7(f) report. Verify before you rely on anything here. This page carries no imagery, deliberately, and the reasons are set out in full in the register section above.