GRAND GLOBAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (989980-D) · KPKT 30249-1 · developer code 30249GRAND DAMANSARA @ Petaling Jaya — registered GRAND DAMANSARA, register code 30249-1, 330 units: 220 Pangsapuri Servis + 110 SOHO, Jadual H on ALL 330 — the SOHO units INCLUDED, vacant possession moved by an APPROVED 12-month extension from 03/08/2026 to 03/08/2027 — licensee GRAND GLOBAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., off the Sprint Highway, Daerah Petaling, Selangor
Four facts frame this page, and the first one is a date that has already passed. The KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record, read 15 October 2026, carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan — an APPROVED 12-month extension that moved contractual vacant possession from 3 August 2026 to 3 August 2027. The original date is about two and a half months in the past, ccc and vp both read -, and the register nevertheless rates the project Lancar and does not flag it Lewat. The filed advertisement still prints Disember 2026. A buyer’s Schedule H clock is the REVISED register date, not the brochure’s. Second, and it is the best news on the page: the 110 SOHO units are NOT outside the Housing Development Act. One licence, one advertising and sales permit and one pjb record reading Jadual H cover the whole registration.
pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya · +12 months · VP 03/08/2026 → 03/08/2027Jadual H on ALL 330 · SOHO INCLUDED330 units · 220 Pangsapuri Servis + 110 SOHOccc: - · vp: - · Lancar · no Lewat flagNO filed built-up schedule · keluasan: 0 on both rowstingkat 40 on both components · register only99-year leasehold · expiry 1 December 2121Licence 30249/10-2027/0248(A) · CURRENTAPDL 30249-1/07-2027/0578(R)-(S) · CURRENT to 27/07/2027Baki 1 unit / Baki 0 unit · effectively sold outLouis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency · replies personally
30249-1registered GRAND DAMANSARA — the registered name and the marketing name are the SAME string, character for characterJadual H on 330 of 330including all 110 SOHO parcels — the converse of the office-suite projects on this site
Grand Damansara at a glance
Read on 15 October 2026 against the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record 30249-1, the ONE filed statutory advertisement lodged with Jabatan Perumahan Negara (IKLAN_BROSUR_01; its two sibling files in the same directory were fetched and are genuinely absent, so one document is the whole filed record), the GreenRE registers, the Selangor controlled-price project list, the developer’s own two websites and TWO third-party property portals. Four things frame everything below: an approved 12-month delivery extension whose ORIGINAL date has already passed; Jadual H reaching all 330 units including the 110 SOHO; NO filed built-up schedule of any kind; and a register that says Berfasa while licensing exactly one phase. Where sources disagree, both readings are printed and neither is adjudicated.
- Registered scheme name
GRAND DAMANSARAprojek.namaon30249-1. The registered name and the marketing name are the same string, character for character — noResidensiprefix, no Malay alias, no reversal, no translation. A positive finding worth stating: a client who types Grand Damansara into the public register will find this project. The FILED advertisement itself names nothing — it carries noNama projek/pemajuanfield at all, and the string appears only in the document’s masthead, so the register is the only document that formally carries the name- Licensed developer
GRAND GLOBAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.(989980-D)KPKT developer code30249·0 sakit,0 terbengkalai· no recorded offence flag ·jumlahProjek: 1— a clean record over a sample of ONE licensed project · the company registration number comes from the project microsite footer and one portal, which agree; the filed brochure’s OCR renders it with one spurious trailing character and the register prints no registration number at all · the marketing brand “Grand Global” is the licensee’s own first two words — no JV, no unrelated SPV, no parent-versus-licensee gap, which is unusually clean- Developer licence
30249/10-2027/0248(A)· CURRENT13/10/2022 – 12/10/2027, about twelve months to run at the reading date · the filed advertisement prints the number without the suffix and with garbled spacing; the register prints the(A)suffix · the licence itself has ONE unbroken term — the two expired rows in the register belong to the PERMIT history, not the licence- Advertising & sales permit (APDL)
30249-1/07-2027/0578(R)-(S)· CURRENT28/07/2026 – 27/07/2027, about nine and a half months to run · the FILED advertisement prints BOTH permit fields asXXXXXXXXXXXXX— a placeholder in the number AND in the validity, so both were read off the register instead · permit continuity is CLEAN: the earlier permit expired 27 July 2026 and this one starts 28 July 2026 — no gap · two prior rows readTamat, one(A)and one(N)on the same serial · the-(S)tail reads STRATA · one portal still publishes the EXPIRED 2026 permit as if it were current, on a panel dated a month after it lapsed- Contract schedule & components
Jadual H· 220Pangsapuri Servis+ 110SOHOONEpjbobject covers the whole registration and it readsJadual H, withtempohAsal: 36 Bulan· so the 110 SOHO parcels are HDA-protected too: the statutory sale contract, the HDA liquidated-damages formula, the section 7A housing development account, the statutory defect liability period and the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims reach all 330 · the marketed ground- and first-floor RETAIL podium is in NO register row at all, so nothing here reads across onto it- Units
- 330The filed advertisement (220 + 110) and the register agree EXACTLY · one portal’s body text says
981while that same portal’s own KPKT panel says “329 of 330 sold” — it contradicts itself threefold on one page · 330 is used here; 981 is refused · but the question is not closed harder than the evidence allows:maklumatPembangunanreadsBerfasaand a second, UNLICENSED scheme is marketed, so a larger unregistered whole is possible - Storeys
- 40 · REGISTER ONLY
tingkat: 40on BOTH component rows · the filed advertisement’sBilangan tingkatfield is NOT PRINTED · no developer surface states a storey count · and the arithmetic that follows is worth seeing: 330 units over two towers of 40 storeys is about four units per floor, which is implausibly low for 273 ft² studios — independent reason to read 330 as a licensed PHASE rather than the whole built form. That is arithmetic, not evidence - Built-ups
- NOT FILED. AT ALL.
Luas binaanis NOT PRINTED on the filed advertisement and the register’skeluasanreads0on BOTH component rows · so every square-foot figure in circulation — 273 to 936 ft² — is the DEVELOPER’S OWN MARKETING FIGURE, and this page labels it that way every single time · no square-metre figure is published by anybody, so no conversion is offered here - Bedrooms / bathrooms
- Per COMPONENT onlyRegister
bilik/tandas:Pangsapuri Servis2, 3 bedrooms / 1, 2 bathrooms ·SOHO1 bedroom / 1 bathroom · NOBODY publishes a room count per TYPE — the developer publishes seven marketed types and not one bedroom, bathroom or car-park figure against any of them ·Tempat letak keretais NOT PRINTED and no source gives a bay count or a per-unit allocation - Filed statutory price bands
Pangsapuri ServisRM270,000 – RM915,800SOHORM230,000 – RM503,800Harga jualan uniton the filed advertisement, and the registry band is IDENTICAL at both ends of both components · these are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands and nothing else: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer · no “from” figure appears anywhere on this page — the developer’s own headline is asterisked with “T&C apply”, which makes it conditional on attached terms and therefore unpublishable here even though it is NOT below the filed minimum- Delivery
- Contractual VP
03/08/2027· +12 months, APPROVEDtarikhPjbPertama: 03 Aug 2023+tempohAsal: 36 BulangaveserahKosongIkutPjb: 03 Aug 2026·pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya,tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan,tempohPembinaanBaharu: 48 Bulan,serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama: 03 Aug 2027·ccc: -,vp: -,status.keseluruhan: Lancar, noLewatflag · the current permit expires 27 July 2027, about seven days BEFORE that contractual date, and no source says whether a further renewal is intended - Take-up
Baki 1 unit/Baki 0 unitThe filed advertisement’s own figures: 1 of 220Pangsapuri Servisremaining and 0 of 110SOHO— effectively sold out · one portal dated 28 August 2026 agrees at “329 of 330 sold” · the register’s ownperatusreads90.79(SOHO) and91.02(Pangsapuri Servis), and NOTHING on the record says whatperatusmeasures — there is noperatusSiapand noterjualkey. Two government surfaces, two quantities, and one of them is unadjudicable by construction · so this is not a page that sells units; it is a page that explains a building- Tenure
- 99 Tahun — LEASEHOLD · expiry 1 December 2121
Pegangan tanahandTarikh luput pajakanon the filed advertisement · about 95 years unexpired at the reading date, which most sheets in this series cannot get at all · chargeeUOB, named on the filing and corroborated by nobody ·Sekatan kepentinganis NOT PRINTED — that is a finding, not a gap: whether State consent is needed to transfer is simply unknown - Approving authority & plan
MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYAPlanMBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7)· MBPJ has jurisdiction only inside Petaling Jaya, so the district is Daerah Petaling, Selangor — Zone 1 for the foreign-buyer threshold · corroborated by the register’s owndaerah: “Petaling ”andnegeri: Selangor, and by filed coordinates3.131960, 101.611990· the/120100/T/P10/body is the stable MBPJ pattern and this is the sixth project on this site to carry it- Locality
- NOT FILED
Alamat tapakis NOT PRINTED; the register has noalamat, nomukimand noposkodfor this project; and there is no lot or PT number anywhere · the only site address in circulation is ONE portal’s, in the Kampung Sungai Kayu Ara / Damansara Utama pocket of inner PJ off the Sprint Highway, and its 47400 postcode is ALSO the developer’s own office postcode, so it may be inherited rather than independent · the portal address and the filed coordinate corroborate each other, which is the strongest locational finding available - Green rating
- NONE. And this is a REAL negativeNo
GRAND DAMANSARArow and noGRAND GLOBALrow in the Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze GreenRE registers — and none in the UNTRUNCATED 199-entry certification entry list that sits above them · nobody claims a rating: the project microsite has no awards page, the group About page lists no award, no certification and no green rating · one honest hedge is kept: the plan was approved in 2022 and the first SPA was August 2023, while the Bronze table now starts 4 April 2024 and Silver 26 December 2023, so a pre-2024 provisional rating could not appear in those tier tables — the entry list is what closes most of that gap
Explore related topics
Everything below is either a field on KPKT register record 30249-1, a line on the one filed statutory advertisement, a row in the GreenRE registers, a statement on one of the developer’s own two websites, or a reading from one of two third-party portals — and every one of them is labelled with which.
Why this page reads differently from every brochure on this project
Seven things. Each one is a document this page read and a decision it made in the open, and every one of them is checkable against a code you can type into the public register yourself: 30249-1.
It leads with the extension, because the register does
The headline on this project is a date that has already gone past. tarikhPjbPertama reads 03 Aug 2023 and tempohAsal reads 36 Bulan, which gave a contractual vacant possession date of 3 August 2026. pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan reads 12 Bulan and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama reads 03 Aug 2027. So an approved 12-month extension moved delivery by a year, the ORIGINAL date passed about two and a half months before this reading, ccc and vp both read -, and the register still rates the project Lancar with no Lewat flag. The filed advertisement’s Tarikh dijangka siap still says Disember 2026, which is a stale filed estimate against the register’s own revised date. What a buyer needs to know in one sentence: your Schedule H clock runs to the REVISED date, not to the brochure’s.
It states that the SOHO units ARE protected — as a fact, not a hedge
On project after project on this site a SOHO, suite or office component has turned out to sit OUTSIDE the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, with no statutory contract, no liquidated-damages formula and no Tribunal. Here it is the other way round. The register prints ONE pjb object for the whole of 30249-1 and it reads jenis: Jadual H. Both components sit on ONE developer licence and ONE advertising and sales permit. So the 110 SOHO parcels are sold on the prescribed statutory sale contract, with the HDA liquidated-damages formula, the section 7A housing development account, the statutory defect liability period and access to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. This is the single most useful line available on this project, and it is the converse of the office-suite findings elsewhere on this site. The carve-out that travels with it: the marketed RETAIL podium carries no licence row, no unit count and no filing of any kind, so none of the above may be read across onto a retail lot.
It refuses to present a single square foot as filed
There is NO filed built-up schedule on this project at all. Luas binaan is NOT PRINTED on the filed advertisement, and the register’s keluasan field reads 0 on BOTH component rows — not square metres to convert, a zero. So the standing rule on this site — never take a built-up from a filing’s narrative prose, only from its statutory schedule — resolves here to: there is nothing to take. Every square-foot figure in circulation, from 273 to 936, is the developer’s own marketing figure, and this page says so beside each one, every time it appears. No square-metre figure is published by anybody either, so this page offers no conversion: a metric figure here would be the page’s own arithmetic dressed up as a specification.
It says the development is PHASED and only one phase is licensed
status.maklumatPembangunan reads Berfasa — phased — and exactly ONE phase is registered: these 330 units. Meanwhile the group’s own current-projects page markets a separate Grand Damansara II in “Damansara, Petaling Jaya”, with its own thumbnail and its own carousel entry. That second scheme has NO KPKT developer licence row, NO advertising and sales permit, NO HIMS filing and NO register entry: the serial walk to 30249-2 returns a client error, the developer-level record prints jumlahProjek: 1, and the Selangor controlled-price project list carries no row for this licensee at all. Said plainly: exactly 330 units are licensed, advertised and HDA-protected. Whatever else is marketed on or beside this site is a NEIGHBOUR, not this product, and nothing crosses from it — not a render, not a built-up, not a facility, not a completion date.
It prints both filed bands and no other price — including the developer’s own
Two filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands exist and both are printed here: Pangsapuri Servis RM270,000 to RM915,800 and SOHO RM230,000 to RM503,800, with the registry band identical at both ends of both components. Each is labelled as the filed statutory band, and each carries the same caveat: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. What is NOT here is the developer’s own opening “from” headline. It is asterisked with “T&C apply”, which makes it conditional on terms this page cannot read — so it is barred, even though it is NOT below the filed minimum. That is worth stating precisely, because the usual test on this site is whether a marketing figure sits BELOW the filed floor. Here the test is the asterisk, not the direction. One portal also carries two DIFFERENT “from” figures on one page, its body against its own page description, and a monthly instalment it could not even finish computing. No digits from any of that appear here.
It publishes no swimming pool, and no distance
Two refusals that a brochure would never make. First: a swimming pool is listed by BOTH third-party portals and by NEITHER of the developer’s own two websites, and no filed document mentions facilities at all. One portal escalates it to a “rooftop infinity pool”, while the developer’s only published level assignment is a Level 7 facilities podium. So this page publishes NO pool — it publishes the disagreement instead. Second: the developer publishes not one distance and not one travel time in TEXT anywhere. Everything positional on its location page sits inside a graphic with no text layer. One portal publishes straight-line metre figures to a handful of places; a second portal names a rail station that nothing corroborates and contradicts the first. And the portal’s own amenity cluster may be measured from the developer’s SALES GALLERY at 10 Boulevard, PJU 6A rather than from the site. So this page carries no distance, no travel time and no “nearest station”. It names the places, and it tells you nobody has measured them.
It separates what the register knows from what marketing says
Four more disagreements are printed here unresolved rather than tidied away. Completion exists in FOUR versions: the filing’s Disember 2026, the register’s revised 03 Aug 2027, one portal’s “Q2 2027”, and another portal’s Build End: N/A. Build status exists in two: the register’s Lancar with ccc and vp both - against one portal’s “Completed Unit Available”, which is flatly wrong against the register. Units exist in three, all on one portal’s single page. And the developer’s own About page is four years stale on its own arithmetic: it claims 26 years of experience from a 1996 start, while its own footer reads 2026. This page carries “active since 1996”, which is a date you can check, and drops the 26. Three of its superlatives are refused outright for want of any primary support: the “most valuable address” claim, the “new landmark” claim, and “minutes away”.
Grand Damansara: 330 units on Jadual H, two components, one licensed phase
Two filed components on ONE registration: 220 Pangsapuri Servis and 110 SOHO, both at tingkat 40. The developer markets two towers over a ground- and first-floor retail podium — Tower A as “Lifestyle Suites” and Tower B as “Residences” — and NO source maps Tower A or Tower B onto SOHO or Pangsapuri Servis. The inference is strong: Tower A’s three marketed types run 273 to 471 ft² inside a workspace-and-studio marketing frame, while Tower B’s four run 471 to 936 ft² and the register gives Pangsapuri Servis 2 to 3 bedrooms. It is an inference, it is labelled one, and this page does not state it as fact. What is NOT here, from anybody: a built-up schedule, a land area, a car-park bay count, a facilities text schedule, a site address, a mukim, a lot number, an architect, an engineer and a contractor. The site taxonomy term on this page is condominium and serviced apartment, because 220 of the 330 units are filed Pangsapuri Servis and the developer’s own word is “serviced apartment” — but 110 units are filed SOHO and that is flagged throughout rather than smoothed over.
Pangsapuri Servis + SOHOkeluasan — NO filed built-up scheduleLancarccc: - · vp: - · no LewatBaki unit — effectively sold outFacilities — three surfaces, three different lists, and one headline absence
The developer publishes its facilities as a GALLERY OF IMAGES with no text list anywhere, and the only level assignment on its entire site is a heading reading “Facilities Podium @ Level 7” sitting above a site-plan image. So exactly one level is published and NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL FACILITY is assigned to a level by any source: a per-level facilities table cannot be built for this project and is not attempted here. Nothing is marked “space only” or shell by anybody either — but with no text schedule on any surface, no fit-out commitment can be established for any facility named below. The filed advertisement has no facilities field at all.
Named by the DEVELOPER
- Swing terrace · Hammock · Jacuzzi · Pristine lawn
- Reading room · Indoor gym · Game room
- Coworking space — the developer names it and NEITHER portal does
- An “Overall Facilities” site-plan image under the heading “Facilities Podium @ Level 7”
- These nine subjects come from the developer’s own image titles and filenames, not from a published list. The home page also prints the group caption “Artist’s Impression”, which establishes that the renders are renders and assigns nothing to anything
Published ONLY by third-party portals
- SWIMMING POOL — and one portal escalates it to a “rooftop infinity pool”
- Basketball · Jogging track · Multi-purpose hall · Barbecue
- Garden and community garden · Laundry · Playground
- Adult fitness stations · Yoga deck · Car park
- Ten of these facilities are portal-only. This page does not present any of them as the developer’s, because the developer does not name them
The pool, in full, because it matters
- The single most-asked facility in Malaysian high-rise is PORTAL-ONLY on this project.
- Both portals list a swimming pool. NEITHER of the developer’s own two websites names one. No filed document mentions facilities at all
- One portal calls it a rooftop infinity pool, while the developer’s only published level is a Level 7 podium — so the portal’s own description sits against the developer’s own only level assignment
- Therefore: this page does not say there is a pool, and it does not say there is none. It says two portals list one and the developer does not, and it refuses to resolve what no document resolves
- Ask for the strata plan and the facility schedule. That is what settles it
Filed by the statutory advertisement
IKLAN_BROSUR_01 · the only filed document- NO facilities field. NO facilities list. NO distances. NO built-up schedule. NO storey count. NO land area. NO car-park figure. NO site address.
- Both permit fields print as
XXXXXXXXXXXXX— a placeholder in the number and in the validity - What it DOES carry, and it is more than most: the tenure, the lease expiry date, the chargee, both price bands, both unit counts with their
Bakifigures, the approving authority in words and the building-plan reference - Two sibling files in the same directory were fetched and are genuinely absent, so this one document is the whole filed record
Green rating and awards — a real negative, not a hedge
- No
GRAND DAMANSARArow and noGRAND GLOBALrow in the Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze registers — and none in the UNTRUNCATED 199-entry certification ENTRY list that sits above the tier tables - An untruncated entry list with no row for the project and none for the licensee is what turns an inconclusive into a finding: on the reachable evidence this project has never entered GreenRE certification
- And nobody claims otherwise: the project microsite has no awards page and makes no award claim; the group About page lists no award, no certification and no green rating. There is nothing to borrow and nothing to refuse
- The hedge that is kept because it is honest: the plan was approved in 2022 and the first SPA was August 2023, while the Bronze table now begins 4 April 2024 and Silver 26 December 2023 — so a PRE-2024 provisional rating could not appear in those tier tables. The entry list closes most of that gap; the tier tables alone would not have
- No alternative scheme explains the zero either: no BCA Green Mark claim, no LEED claim, no certificate library. The GBI directory would not serve on this read, which is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative
- Twenty-two GreenRE rows were examined and refused as decoys on five axes, the densest being a real Damansara serviced-apartment project whose licensee name contains GLOBAL, and two Bronze-rated companies named after Damansara Uptown — the commercial heart of the very locality this project sits in. Different licensees, different schemes, non-residential tools. None of them is this project’s credential
The dates, in order — and the one that governs is the REVISED one
MBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7) approved by MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA30249/10-2027/0248(A) starts36 bulantarikhPjbPertama: the first SPA. The delivery clock starts here, and tempohAsal is 36 Bulan30249-1/07-2026/0866 expires — Tamat30249-1/07-2027/0578(R)-(S) starts the very next day — clean continuity, NO gapserahKosongIkutPjb: the ORIGINAL contractual vacant possession date. IT HAS PASSEDTarikh dijangka siap — Disember 2026, a STALE filed estimate against the register’s own revised dateccc: -, vp: -, status.keseluruhan: Lancar, no Lewat flag, Baki 1 / Baki 0serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama: the REVISED contractual vacant possession date, after the approved 12-month extension. THIS is the date a buyer’s Schedule H clock runs toSeven marketed types, 273 to 936 ft² — and NOT ONE of them is a filed built-up
Read this before any card below. The filed statutory advertisement does not print Luas binaan at all, and the register’s keluasan field reads 0 on BOTH component rows. There is no filed built-up schedule on this project in any form. So the seven sizes below are the DEVELOPER’S OWN MARKETING FIGURES, taken from its own integrated-living page, and every one of them is labelled that way on its own card. No source attaches a bedroom count, a bathroom count or a car-park bay to any single type: the only room data that exists anywhere is the register’s, and the register gives it per COMPONENT — Pangsapuri Servis 2 to 3 bedrooms and 1 to 2 bathrooms, SOHO 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. No source maps either tower onto either filed component, and no source attaches a price to a size, so this page attaches none. No square-metre figure is published by anybody, so no conversion is offered: it would be this page’s own arithmetic.
Studio Suite — developer figure 273 ft²
A buyer reading the word “studio” should be told what the filing says: Tower A’s filed component is SOHO, and the register gives that component 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. The developer’s whole marketing frame around this type is small-office-home-office language — “Curate Your Own Space”, with workspace, workshop or studio, hobby space, investment space, study space, storage space and leisure space named as uses. So this is very probably a studio OFFICE rather than a residential studio. The mitigant is real and it is the best fact on this page: it is still sold on Schedule H, so the statutory protections reach it in full. Which tower holds which filed component is an inference, not a published fact.
Dual Key Suite — developer figure 469 ft²
This page does not repeat “dual key” as a fact, and here is exactly why. The developer markets a Dual Key Suite and publishes NO room list for it whatsoever — no bedrooms, no bathrooms, no doors, no entrances. The only room data anywhere is the register’s, and the register gives the SOHO component 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. A 469 ft² parcel on a one-bedroom, one-bathroom filed component does not support a dual-key description. So the honest statement is: the developer uses the term, the developer publishes no room list, and the register’s counts for that component are one and one. Ask for the drawing with the room list written on it before paying for a second key.
Executive Suite — developer figure 471 ft²
The show-unit photograph at the top of this page is the developer’s own and its title names this type — and that is as far as the evidence goes. The developer’s source does not state which ROOM the photograph shows, so the caption does not claim one. Note also that Tower A’s Executive Suite at 471 ft² and Tower B’s Type C at 471 ft² carry the SAME marketed built-up across two differently-framed towers, and no source explains the duplication. That is the kind of coincidence a schedule would resolve, and there is no filed schedule to resolve it.
Type C — developer figure 471 ft²
The register gives the Pangsapuri Servis component 2 and 3 bedrooms with 1 and 2 bathrooms, for all 220 units together. On a 471 ft² marketed built-up that is worth reading carefully: a two-bedroom layout at that size is possible and common in this market, but NOBODY publishes a room count against this type, so this page does not say how many bedrooms it has. Nor is there any filed figure to check the 471 against: it is the developer’s number, published on the developer’s own page, and the register’s area field is a zero.
Type B — developer figure 686 ft²
The middle of the marketed Tower B range. The filed statutory band for the Pangsapuri Servis component runs RM270,000 to RM915,800 — one band for 220 units, with nothing in any document attaching a part of it to a size. So this page prints the band in the register section and attaches no figure to this card, because any such attachment would be invented. Ask for the price list and the Schedule H floor-area schedule from the sale contract: between them they settle both the size and the price for one specific unit, in writing.
Type A — developer figure 916 ft²
916 and 936 ft² sit twenty square feet apart in the developer’s own schedule. Two types that close together are normally distinguished by layout rather than by area — and with no drawing reproduced here and no filed schedule in existence, the distinction cannot be read off anything public. On the filed band, a unit at the top of the Pangsapuri Servis component reaches RM915,800, which is still only about 46% of the RM2,000,000 Selangor Zone 1 foreign-buyer floor — see the register section, where that comparison is done properly.
Type A1 — developer figure 936 ft²
This is the upper end of the 273-to-936 ft² range that every brochure, portal and agent page on this project quotes — and the whole range is the developer’s own, not a filed one. Worth recording because it explains a coincidence elsewhere on this site: an unrelated agent page once carried “40 storeys, 273 to 936 sq ft” under a different project’s name. Those figures are THIS project’s, and they travelled OUT of it. Nothing on that page may be cited for either project.
Types B1 and B2 — NO published built-up at all
The developer’s own media library carries Tower B drawing files for type codes B1 and B2, while its published schedule covers only A, A1, B and C. So Tower B is laid out with at least six type codes and the developer publishes built-ups for four of them. A FILENAME can be the only evidence that a type code exists — and that is exactly when it must NOT be published as a schedule. So this card records that two further types exist and are undocumented, and invents no size for either. If you are being offered a B1 or a B2, ask for the drawing and the floor-area schedule before anything else.
Four notes that belong under this section rather than inside a card. First, the drawings. Ten unit-layout and floor-plan drawings are published by the developer and all ten are vector files, which this site cannot yet serve — so this section ships with no drawing rather than with a substitute, and the cards will be filled in without anything else on this page changing. Second, the developer’s own drawing titles are CROSSED against its own filenames: on the studio, executive and dual-key pairs, the file whose NAME contains “unit” carries the “floor plan” title and the file whose name does not carries the “unit layout” title. That is a reason to read a drawing rather than trust its label, and it is why none of these cards describes a layout it has not been shown. Third, the RETAIL podium. The developer markets ground- and first-floor retail “suitable for F&B outlets, cafés, drive-through fast food and convenience stores”. It appears in NO register row: no retail unit count, no retail area, no retail licence, no retail permit. It is therefore not a card in this section, and nothing in the statutory protections described on this page may be read across onto a retail lot. Fourth, the decoy that is already on this site. Two draft pages here record an agent page whose meta description read “Grand Damansara” over a completely different project’s content. It is resolved: this project is genuinely 40 storeys with a genuine 273-to-936 ft² marketed range, so the numbers travelled out of here and into somebody else’s template. That page remains unusable for either project.
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.
Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Selangor — off the Sprint Highway
The district had to be settled before the foreign-buyer threshold could be looked up, and it settles four independent ways with nothing disagreeing. First, the filed building-plan reference MBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7), whose MBPJ prefix is a Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya reference and whose /120100/T/P10/ body is the stable MBPJ pattern — the sixth project on this site to carry it. Second, Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan printed in WORDS on the same filed document as MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA, whose jurisdiction lies only inside Petaling Jaya. Third, the register’s own daerah: “Petaling ” and negeri: Selangor. Fourth, the filed coordinates 3.131960, 101.611990, which are in valid range and sit in inner Petaling Jaya. The LOCALITY is a different matter, and this page says so plainly: it is NOT FILED. Alamat tapak is NOT PRINTED, the register carries no address, no mukim and no postcode for this project, and no lot or PT number exists on any surface read.
Which Damansara this is, and which it is not. “Damansara” spans four local authorities depending on which Damansara is meant, so the exclusion matters as much as the answer. On the filed coordinate and the one portal address that agrees with it, this is the inner-Petaling-Jaya Damansara — the Kampung Sungai Kayu Ara / Damansara Utama pocket, hard by the Sprint Highway. It is NOT Damansara Perdana (also MBPJ, several kilometres north), NOT Kota Damansara, NOT Mutiara Damansara, NOT Damansara Damai, NOT Bandar Sri Damansara (MBPJ but with a Kuala Lumpur postcode — the standing trap), NOT Kwasa Damansara, NOT Damansara Heights (which is Kuala Lumpur under DBKL), NOT Ara Damansara and NOT ParkCity. The exclusion of the two northern Damansaras was done by great-circle arithmetic on two FILED coordinates already on this site, and it is used ONLY to exclude — no distance from it is published here.
Rail — this page names NO station, and that is deliberate
- The developer publishes an LRT map GRAPHIC with no text layer and names no station anywhere.
- One portal names an MRT station on the Putrajaya line and gives a straight-line metre figure to it. A SECOND portal names a different station on a different line — corroborated by nothing — and separately repeats the MRT one.
- So: two portals, two different “nearest” rail answers, a developer graphic with no text, and no filed document that mentions rail at all.
- This page therefore names no station as the nearest and publishes no metre figure. Naming one would be choosing between two publishers who disagree
- And there is a measurement problem behind the figure itself: that portal’s amenity distances read like a tight cluster around a single point, and the developer’s office AND its sales gallery are both at 10 Boulevard, PJU 6A — so the cluster may be centred on the SALES GALLERY rather than on the site
- What closes it: the developer’s own location plan with distances in writing, or the site address as it appears in the sale and purchase agreement
Roads — named by a portal, measured by nobody
- Sprint Highway — the developer’s own only positional text claim is that the tower is “on the SPRINT Highway”
- NKVE · LDP — both named by one portal with no distance and no access-point detail
- No source publishes a distance to any highway entry, and no source publishes a travel time to anywhere. The developer’s location page says only that “an abundance of urban amenities is minutes away” — and NOBODY publishes a measured minute
Tempat letak keretais NOT PRINTED on the filing, no source gives a total bay count and no source maps bays to a type. This page promises no bay
Amenities named with NO distance from ANY source
- Shopping: 1 Utama · Centrepoint Bandar Utama · The Curve · IKEA and IPC · Atria Shopping Gallery · Glo Damansara
- Education: The British International School of Kuala Lumpur · First City University College · a national primary school in Bandar Utama
- Healthcare: KPJ Damansara Specialist Hospital · Columbia Asia · Kelana Jaya Medical Centre · Thomson Medical Centre
- Recreation: TTDI Park · Bukit Kiara Trail · Tropicana Golf & Country Resort · Bandar Utama Golf Course · The Club Bukit Utama · a badminton centre
- Every name above comes from one portal’s amenity list, and that portal publishes NO distance for any of them. A handful of other places on that portal carry straight-line metre figures, and this page reproduces none of those figures for the reasons in the rail column
- The developer’s own location page names not one of these places in text. Everything positional it publishes is inside an image
Land, density and the retail podium
Keluasan tanahis NOT PRINTED on the filed advertisement and the register carries no land-area field.- The only land figure in existence anywhere is one portal’s
2.76 acres— one publisher, undated and unsourced. - So DENSITY cannot be computed from a filed denominator, and this page publishes no units-per-acre figure of any kind. A density computed on a portal’s acreage would be this page’s own arithmetic presented as a specification
- Nobody calls this project low-density either, so there is nothing to refute — a positive finding, for once
- The marketed ground- and first-floor retail podium appears in NO register row: no unit count, no area, no licence, no permit. It is not costed, not counted and not protected on anything this page can read
One more thing this page will not do. Adjacency is not a distance, a graphic is not a measurement, and “minutes away” is not a travel time. If no source prints a figure, this page prints no figure — and on this project the developer prints none at all.
Grand Damansara @ Petaling Jaya, Selangor: latest prices, layouts and availability
Message me on WhatsApp for the latest price list and available units, full floor plans and the e-brochure, a rental estimate and loan calculation, or a show-unit viewing.
GRAND GLOBAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. — developer code 30249
The company that is legally the developer here is GRAND GLOBAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., company registration 989980-D, KPKT developer code 30249. And on this project — unusually for this site — the licensee and the marketing brand are not two different things: the brand “Grand Global” is simply the licensee’s own first two words. There is no joint venture, no single-purpose vehicle with an unrelated name, and no parent-versus-licensee gap to warn about. That is worth saying plainly, because on several projects on this site the name on the brochure belongs to a company that holds no licence at all. One small thing to know: there is no company called “Grand Global Sdn Bhd” in the register, so the bare brand is not itself a licensee — and one portal prints the developer as bare “Grand Global”.
Where the registration number comes from, since the register does not give one. 989980-D is published by the project microsite’s own footer and by one portal, which agree character for character. The filed brochure’s machine-read text adds one spurious trailing character to the same string, and TEDUH prints no registration number at all. Two independent surfaces agreeing, against one scanning artefact of the same number, is why this page prints 989980-D.
How to score this licensee honestly: by its register record AND by its sample size. The record is clean — 0 sick projects, 0 abandoned projects, no recorded offence flag, and a licence with one unbroken term. And pemaju.jumlahProjek reads 1: that clean record covers exactly ONE KPKT-licensed project, which is this one. The group’s published history — a portfolio it dates from 1996, including a completed Johor high-rise, a Kuala Lumpur residential project, a Terengganu island resort and an apartment building in Melbourne — sits under OTHER companies or outside Malaysia, and does NOT corroborate this licensee’s delivery record. So the group’s “successful track of records” line is not read here as this licensee’s track record, and a buyer should not read it that way either.
The sibling licensee, and why it is relevant without being transferable. A KPKT developer search on the brand stem returns exactly TWO records: this licensee, and a second company holding a COMPLETED Johor Bahru high-rise under its own licence code. Three legs of the same corporate fingerprint confirm they are the same group: the registered office addresses are identical character for character, the business addresses are the same suite at 10 Boulevard on the Sprint Highway, and the two register e-mail addresses are on one domain. One of those address fields is also internally contradictory in the register — it glues the Petaling Jaya street to a Johor Bahru city and a Selangor state — which is a standing reason never to read a district off a register address field. What does NOT transfer: that sibling’s completion record, its marketing language, and an image of it that sits inside THIS project’s own media library. A different licensee, a different licence, a different state and a different scheme.
The developer’s own words, and the four claims this page refuses to repeat. “Petaling Jaya’s most valuable address” is supported by no price ranking, no transaction data, no index and no third party: it is a bare assertion and it is refused. “A new landmark in Damansara” is refused for the same reason, and with an extra one: no height ranking is published by anybody, and the FILING does not even print a storey count — the 40 comes from the register alone — so no tallest-type arithmetic is possible. “An abundance of urban amenities is minutes away” is refused because nobody, including the developer, publishes a measured minute. And the About page’s “with 26 years of experience” is four years stale on its own arithmetic: 1996 plus 26 is 2022, while the same site’s footer reads 2026. So this page carries “active in property development since 1996” — a date, which is checkable — and drops the 26. What the developer does publish usefully: that Tower A is “Lifestyle Suites” and Tower B is “Residences”, that the facilities podium is at Level 7, that the renders are an “Artist’s Impression”, and that the retail is intended for food and beverage outlets, cafés, drive-through fast food and convenience stores.
Imagery: what is on this page, and the refusals behind it. Only TWO images on this page come from the developer, and both are the developer’s own: a location graphic and one show-unit photograph whose title names the Executive Suite type. The location graphic is a LOCATOR and nothing else — no distance anywhere on this page is read off it, because it carries no text layer at all. The show-unit photograph is captioned as a show unit and nothing more: the developer’s own source does not state which room it shows, and a caption cannot be transferred between files, so none is invented. Three refusals, and the third is the sharpest thing found on this developer’s surfaces. First, the developer’s own media library contains licensed stock photography — one file whose CMS title IS a stock-agency caption string, truncated mid-word, and another named after an image-library contributor. Both are large and clean technically, and both are refused on PROVENANCE: a stock armchair is not a Grand Damansara interior. Second, images of other projects, including the group’s Johor tower and an apartment building in Melbourne, sit in the same library and are refused for the obvious reason. Third — and this is why a caption is never moved between files on this site — the developer’s own page prints a photographer credit for ONE stock image beneath the OTHER one. The attribution has already been crossed upstream, by the developer, on its own website. Anyone who trusted that caption would publish a stock photograph as a Grand Damansara interior and credit it to the wrong agency.
And two register fields that are worth reading as evidence rather than as metadata. The register’s lamanWeb field reads - with lamanWebUrl: null, while TWO live developer websites exist and both carry this project — so a null web field in this register is never evidence that no developer site exists. That is the fourth time this has been recorded on this site. The lesen_records array, whose name says licences, holds PERMIT serials: two expired permit rows, one with an (A) suffix and one with an (N) on the same number. The licence itself never lapsed, and reporting those two rows as expired licences would be simply wrong.
Licensee particulars read 15 October 2026 from the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 30249 and project record 30249-1, the filed statutory advertisement, the developer’s own two websites, the GreenRE registers, the Selangor State housing lists and two third-party property portals. Nothing on this page is an offer, a quotation or a price list.
Grand Damansara: the questions, and the honest answers
When will Grand Damansara actually be handed over?
tarikhPjbPertama: 03 Aug 2023 with tempohAsal: 36 Bulan, which gave an original contractual vacant possession date of 3 August 2026 — and then pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 48 Bulan and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama: 03 Aug 2027. So an approved 12-month extension moved delivery by a year. The original date has already passed, there is no CCC and no vacant possession on the record, and the register still rates the project Lancar with no Lewat flag — because it is measuring against the revised date. Four surfaces give four different completion answers:| Surface | Completion | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Filed statutory advertisement | Disember 2026 | Stale filed estimate |
| KPKT register, revised contractual VP | 03 Aug 2027 | The date that governs a buyer’s contract |
| One portal | “Q2 2027” | Its own text also reads the extension correctly as 36 + 12 months |
| A second portal | Build End: N/A | And it states “Completed Unit Available”, which is flatly wrong against ccc: - and vp: - |
Are the 110 SOHO units protected under the Housing Development Act, or are they outside it?
pjb object for the whole of 30249-1 and it reads jenis: Jadual H. Both filed components — 220 Pangsapuri Servis and 110 SOHO — sit on ONE developer licence and ONE advertising and sales permit. So all 330 units get the prescribed statutory Schedule H sale contract, the Housing Development Act liquidated-damages formula, the section 7A housing development account, the statutory defect liability period from vacant possession, and access to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. That is the opposite of several office-suite and serviced-suite components documented elsewhere on this site, where none of those protections reached the parcel being sold. The carve-out: the marketed ground- and first-floor retail podium appears in NO register row at all, so nothing in this answer may be read across onto a retail lot.How big are the units?
Luas binaan is NOT PRINTED on the filed statutory advertisement, and the register’s keluasan field reads 0 on both component rows — a zero, not a figure in other units. So every square-foot figure in circulation is the DEVELOPER’S OWN MARKETING FIGURE: 273, 469, 471 and 471, 686, 916 and 936 ft², a marketed range of 273 to 936. This page prints those figures because the developer publishes them, and labels every one of them as the developer’s rather than as filed, every time. Two further type codes exist in Tower B on the evidence of the developer’s own drawing filenames alone, with no published built-up at all. No square-metre figure is published by anybody, so this page offers no conversion. What settles it for one specific unit is the Jadual H floor-area schedule inside the sale and purchase agreement.How many units are there — 330 or 981?
Pangsapuri Servis: 220 Unit and SOHO: 110 Unit, and the register’s two component rows give 220 and 110. One portal’s body text says 981 units — while that same portal’s own KPKT panel on the same page says “329 of 330 sold”. One publisher, one page, three different figures; its own panel agrees with the register against its own prose. So 330 governs and 981 is refused. But the question is not closed harder than the evidence allows: the register’s own maklumatPembangunan reads Berfasa, i.e. phased, and a second scheme is marketed with no filing of any kind — so a larger unregistered whole is possible, and 981 may be somebody’s figure for it. Arithmetic worth seeing: 330 units over two 40-storey towers is about four units per floor, which is implausibly low for 273 ft² studios. That is independent reason to read 330 as a licensed PHASE — and it is arithmetic, not evidence.Is there a swimming pool?
How far is the nearest MRT or LRT station?
Can a foreign buyer buy a unit here?
MBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7) and from MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA printed in words on the same filed document. Daerah Petaling is Selangor ZONE 1, together with Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang, and the Zone 1 minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM2,000,000. The filed statutory MAXIMUM across both components of this project is RM915,800 — about 46% of that floor. So not one of the 330 units reaches the threshold: 0 of 330. The obstacle is the price and it is not close. It is not a title question — the product is strata — and nothing is known about a restriction in interest either way, because Sekatan kepentingan is NOT PRINTED on the filing. The Selangor circular that once created an RM1,500,000 window has expired and is not applied here. A Malaysian lawyer should confirm this on the specific parcel.What is the price?
Pangsapuri Servis (220 units): RM270,000 to RM915,800. SOHO (110 units): RM230,000 to RM503,800. Both are exactly as Harga jualan unit prints them on the filed statutory advertisement, and the public registry band is identical at both ends of both components. These are the filed statutory bands. They are NOT a price list, NOT a quotation and NOT an offer, and they are not interchangeable between the two components. No “from” figure appears on this page from any surface, including the developer’s own, and no price per square foot appears either — no per-type price and no per-type area is filed, so any psf figure would be this page’s own arithmetic. The register section explains exactly which figures were refused and on what ground. For the current price in writing on one specific unit, ask Louis Koh.Is it freehold or leasehold, and how many years are left?
Pegangan tanah reads 99 Tahun and Tarikh luput pajakan reads 1/12/2121 — about 95 years unexpired at the reading date. The remaining term, not the original 99, is what a bank and a resale buyer price. Bebanan / gadaian names UOB as chargee on the filing, and no other surface mentions a chargee at all — uncorroborated rather than contradicted. Sekatan kepentingan is NOT PRINTED, which is a finding rather than a gap: whether State consent is needed to transfer this land is simply unknown, and this page neither asserts nor denies one. One portal’s tenure cell reads a bare 2109, which matches nothing filed and is unexplained. It is refused. An official land search settles the lease, the restriction and the express conditions; Louis Koh will order one.What is “Grand Damansara II”, and is it the same project?
30249-2 returns a client error, the developer-level record reads jumlahProjek: 1, and the Selangor State project lists carry no row for this licensee at all. Meanwhile the register says this development IS phased — maklumatPembangunan: Berfasa — while licensing exactly one phase. So: exactly 330 units on 30249-1 are licensed, advertised and HDA-protected. Grand Damansara II is a neighbour, not this product, and nothing crosses between them — not a render, not a built-up, not a facility, not a completion date, not a price. If you are shown a plan, a render or a facility for “phase two”, ask which registration it sits on, in writing.Does Grand Damansara have a green rating?
GRAND DAMANSARA row and no GRAND GLOBAL row in the GreenRE Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze registers — and none in the untruncated 199-entry certification ENTRY list that sits above the tier tables and that lists projects which have entered certification without yet holding a rating. Nobody claims otherwise either: the project microsite has no awards page and makes no award claim, and the group About page lists no award, no certification and no green rating. There is nothing to borrow and nothing to refuse. The one hedge kept, because it is honest: the building plan was approved in 2022 and the first sale and purchase agreement was August 2023, while the reachable Bronze table now begins 4 April 2024 and Silver 26 December 2023 — so a pre-2024 provisional rating could not have appeared in those tier tables. The entry list is what closes most of that gap. No BCA Green Mark or LEED claim exists on any surface, so no alternative scheme explains the zero. One other Malaysian directory would not serve on this read, which is inconclusive and never a negative.Is any part of this project affordable housing, with a five-year transfer moratorium?
Is the “Dual Key Suite” really a dual-key unit?
SOHO component 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. A 469 ft² parcel on a one-bedroom, one-bathroom filed component does not support a dual-key description. So the honest statement is: the developer uses the term, publishes no room list, and the register’s counts for that component are one and one. Ask for the drawing with the room list and the door count written on it before paying for a second key — and note that the developer’s own drawing titles are crossed against its own filenames on that very pair of files, which is one more reason to read the drawing rather than its label.Why are there no floor plans on this page?
Is it a new launch, or can I buy a completed unit?
Lancar, under construction, with ccc: - and vp: -: there is no certificate of completion and compliance and no vacant possession, so nothing here is a completed unit, and one portal’s “Completed Unit Available” status is flatly wrong against the register. And it is not usefully a new launch either: the filed advertisement’s own figures read Baki 1 unit on the 220 Pangsapuri Servis and Baki 0 unit on the 110 SOHO — one unit of 330 unsold, i.e. effectively sold out, which one portal dated 28 August 2026 independently reads as 329 of 330 sold. So this page is categorised on built form — condominium and serviced apartment, because 220 of the 330 units are filed Pangsapuri Servis — and it carries no new-launch badge, because a project with one unit left is not a launch whatever its delivery date, and no completed-stock badge either, because there is no CCC. What that means in practice: anything available today is most likely the one remaining unit, a cancelled booking, or a subsale from an existing buyer. Ask, in writing, which it is.Where exactly is it?
MBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7), from MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA printed in words on the same document, from the register’s own daerah and negeri, and from filed coordinates 3.131960, 101.611990. NOT filed: Alamat tapak is NOT PRINTED; the register has no address, no mukim and no postcode for this project; there is no lot or PT number anywhere. The only site address in circulation is one portal’s — in the Kampung Sungai Kayu Ara / Damansara Utama pocket of inner Petaling Jaya, off the Sprint Highway, with a 47400 postcode. It agrees with the filed coordinate, which is the strongest locational finding available. But 47400 is ALSO the developer’s own office postcode, so it may be inherited rather than independent. Which Damansara this is NOT, because the name spans four local authorities: not Damansara Perdana, not Kota Damansara, not Mutiara Damansara, not Damansara Damai, not Bandar Sri Damansara, not Kwasa Damansara, not Damansara Heights, not Ara Damansara and not ParkCity. An official land search or the property description in the sale contract is what closes the address question.Who is the developer, and what is its track record?
GRAND GLOBAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., company registration 989980-D, KPKT developer code 30249 — and the marketing brand is the licensee’s own first two words, so there is no parent-versus-licensee trap on this project. The register record is clean: 0 sick projects, 0 abandoned projects, no recorded offence flag, and a licence with one unbroken term from 13 October 2022 to 12 October 2027. And the sample size must travel with it: jumlahProjek reads 1. That clean record covers exactly ONE KPKT-licensed project, which is this one. The group’s published portfolio from 1996 onwards — including a completed Johor high-rise, a Kuala Lumpur project, an island resort and an apartment building in Melbourne — sits under OTHER companies or outside Malaysia, and does not corroborate this licensee’s delivery record. A sibling licensee holding the completed Johor tower shares this one’s registered office, business address and e-mail domain, which proves the group link and transfers nothing else. And the group’s own About page is four years stale on its own arithmetic: it claims 26 years from a 1996 start while its footer reads 2026. This page carries the 1996 date and drops the 26.What does this page refuse to publish, and why?
Thinking about a unit at Grand Damansara?
Start with the three things this project makes urgent, in this order. First, the handover date that will apply to YOUR sale and purchase agreement — the contractual date on the register is the revised 3 August 2027, not the brochure’s December 2026. Second, the built-up, bedrooms, bathrooms and car-park bays of the specific unit, in writing, because there is no filed built-up schedule on this project at all and no source attaches a room count to any type. Third, what is genuinely available, since the filed advertisement’s own figures say one unit of 330 remains. Then the price in writing, and the maintenance charge in writing. Louis Koh will ask the developer for every one of those.
Louis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, Registered Estate Agency. Nothing on this page is an offer, a quotation or a price list. Statutory particulars quoted from KPKT 30249-1 and the filed statutory advertisement, read 15 October 2026. The two filed statutory price bands on this page are the filed bands and nothing else: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
More than a decade in Johor Bahru and Kuala Lumpur property, and the reason this page reads the way it does: the statutory record comes first, every hard number carries the register field or the filed document it came from, and where surfaces disagree, both readings are printed and neither is adjudicated. On Grand Damansara that means the approved 12-month extension leads the page rather than hiding in a footnote; the 110 SOHO units are stated to be HDA-protected, because one Jadual H record covers the whole registration; not one square foot is presented as filed, because nothing is; the unlicensed second scheme is named as unlicensed; and the swimming pool, the station distances and the developer’s own asterisked opening figure are all left off the page with the reason given. Ask for any of it and he will get the developer’s answer in writing.
Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 against KPKT 30249-1, the filed statutory advertisement particulars, the GreenRE registers and certification entry list, the Selangor State controlled-price and quota project lists, the licensed developer’s own two websites and two third-party property portals. Marketing information, not an offer.
Pangsapuri Servis + 110 SOHO · Jadual H on all 330 · contractual VP 03/08/2027 after an approved +12 monthsAsk a specific question
If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.
Developer: Grand Global Group (2 developments on this site)
Where it is: Petaling Jaya (PJ), Selangor