NO KPKT registration · NO APDL · NO filed advertisement · licensee’s own licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R) does NOT reach this park · Daerah Sepang inferred, Selangor

Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2, Taman Meranti Perdana, “47100 Puchong” — 21 three-storey factory units on 7.1 acres, ENTIRELY OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act — and the proof is the developer’s own register record: BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., code `9795`, licence `9795/06-2028/0866(R)` live to 10 June 2028, holds SIX registrations including `9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong` — and this park is on none of them, because a factory cannot be licensed. TENURE IS CONTRADICTED ACROSS FIVE SURFACES, floor loading is 10 / 5 kN/m² and no price is published here at all. `Daerah SEPANG` is an INFERENCE, Selangor

Q: Is Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2 registered with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government?

No, and it cannot be. The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 reaches “housing accommodation”, and a three-storey factory is not housing accommodation. So there is no registered scheme, no project code, no advertising and sales permit and no filed statutory advertisement — and none of those absences is a failure by anybody. The register was searched on 21 October 2026 with a positive control run first, so the zero is a real zero.

Q: What protections am I actually giving up by buying here?

All of these, and the list is the point of this page. No prescribed Schedule G or Schedule H sale contract. No statutory delivery period. No statutory liquidated damages if delivery runs late. No section 7A housing development account ring-fencing your progress payments. No statutory defect-liability period. No filed completion date. No KPKT register entry to check progress or a late flag against. And no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. What you get instead is the developer’s own sale and purchase agreement, which nobody publishes, and whatever your own solicitor negotiates in it. Appoint one before you sign.

Q: Which district is it in, and why does the page hedge?

Most probably Daerah Sepang — and that is an inference, not a filed fact. The normal method is to read the district off the filed building-plan approval prefix, and that is impossible here twice over: there is no filing to carry a prefix, and all seven of the licensee’s registrations print the plan-approval field as Tiada maklumat , so even a sibling-registration leg is unavailable. Four ranked locality legs carry it instead: the project’s own Pulau Meranti name, the 47100 postcode, three earlier filings on this site that settled Daerah Sepang for other 47100-Puchong tamans, and — weakest, and named as such — a subsales portal taxonomy which files the taman under Sepang and mukim Dengkil but then wrongly rolls the town up to Cyberjaya. And the counter-evidence is printed: the licensee’s own Suria Garden @ Puchong is filed under Daerah PETALING , so Binastra does file Puchong projects under Petaling when they are in Petaling. A Majlis Perbandaran Sepang plan-approval record, or the title’s own mukim and lot number, would settle it in one line.

Start with the law, because it decides everything else on this page. The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 reaches “housing accommodation”. A factory or a warehouse is not housing accommodation, so no developer licence, no advertising and sales permit and no registered scheme CAN exist for this park. The absence is lawful. What it costs a buyer is the finding, not a gap: no Schedule G and no Schedule H prescribed contract; no statutory liquidated damages if delivery runs late; no section 7A housing development account ring-fencing progress payments; no filed completion date; no KPKT register entry to check; and no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. The developer’s own sale and purchase agreement, and the solicitor you appoint to read it, is the entire protection you have. AND HERE THE PROOF IS UNUSUALLY SHARP, BECAUSE IT COMES OFF THE DEVELOPER’S OWN REGISTER RECORD. BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., 200401015463 (0653966-W), developer code 9795, holds licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R), valid 11 June 2023 to 10 June 2028 — a live licence — with SIX registered housing projects on it, and one of them is 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong, 972 serviced-apartment units in Daerah Petaling. So the same licensee had a current licence, in the right locality, and this business park is on none of it — not because it failed to file, but because a factory cannot be licensed. The walk closes cleanly: 9795-7 returns CLIENT_ERROR against a stated bilanganProjek: 6, and on the second Binastra licence 31332-2 does the same against bilanganProjek: 1. AND THE CONTRAST THAT MAKES IT CONCRETE: the licensee’s own residential sibling 31332-1 Binastra Cochrane carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with a +24-month extension and a new vacant-possession date of 28 July 2031. The statutory machinery exists, it works, it is public — and the buyer of a factory here gets none of it. THE SECOND THING TO KNOW IS THAT NOBODY CAN TELL YOU WHETHER THE LAND IS FREEHOLD OR LEASEHOLD, AND IT BELONGS UP HERE RATHER THAN BURIED. Leasehold on StarProperty’s news report, on the EdgeProp advertorial, and in PropertyGuru’s structured property-details field on two separate listings. Freehold in PropertyGuru’s own description text on those same two listings, and on StarProperty’s own developer directory. So two publishers contradict themselves, one of them twice on the same page. The developer’s own project page says nothing at all about tenure. No lease term and no expiry date is published by anybody. The weight of evidence favours leasehold; the freehold readings may belong to the EARLIER phase, which is a separate development. This page prints the disagreement UNADJUDICATED, and says plainly that only a land-title search closes it. WHAT IS PUBLISHED AND GOOD: 21 units — 20 semi-detached factories and one bungalow factory — three storeys, on 7.1 acres; built-up 6,373 – 10,331 sq ft on land of 8,072 – 17,701 sq ft; and the one hard engineering figure that two surfaces agree on exactly: floor loading 10 kN/m² on the ground floor and 5 kN/m² on the upper warehouse level, with a 27-ft factory floor-to-floor height, motorised roller shutters, a 1.5-tonne service lift hoist, a three-way opening door system and driveway access for 40-ft containers. WHAT IS NOT PUBLISHED, AND IS PRINTED AS SUCH: no price, at all, by this page — and the reason is stated rather than implied (there is no filing, so there is no filed statutory price range, and the house rule where none exists is to publish nothing); no power supply figure in amps or phase; no roller-shutter dimension; no parking-bay count; no category of land use on the title; no lot or PT number; no mukim; no approving authority and no building-plan approval reference — which is why the district itself is carried here as a ranked inference and not as a fact. AND THE DISTRICT DESERVES ITS OWN WARNING. The usual derivation from a filed plan-approval prefix is IMPOSSIBLE here: there is no filing, and all seven Binastra registrations print the plan-approval field as Tiada maklumat, so even the sibling-registration route is closed. Daerah Sepang rests on four ranked locality legs, the weakest of which is a portal taxonomy that wrongly rolls this town up to Cyberjaya — and the counter-evidence is printed too: 9795-6 proves Binastra files Puchong projects under Daerah PETALING when they are in Petaling. Completion is a disagreement, not a date: 1Q2027 on one surface and Nov 2026 on another — and neither is contractual, because there is no statutory contract to carry one.

ENTIRELY OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act 1966 — a factory is not housingNO KPKT registration · NO APDL · NO filed advertisementLicensee BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD. · 200401015463 (0653966-W)LIVE licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R) to 10 Jun 2028 — and it does NOT reach this parkSIX registrations on 9795, including 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong — this park is on NONETENURE CONTRADICTED — leasehold on 3 surfaces, freehold on 2, no lease expiry anywhere21 units · 20 semi-detached + 1 bungalow factory · 3 storeys · 7.1 acresFloor loading 10 / 5 kN/m² — the one double-sourced engineering figureBuilt-up 6,373 – 10,331 sq ft — and a portal contradicts every figure of itNO PRICE ON THIS PAGE AT ALL — no filing, therefore no filed statutory rangeDaerah Sepang is an INFERENCE — no filing, no plan prefix, no authority namedForeign buyers: an OPEN QUESTION on an industrial title — not a RM figureNo GreenRE entry on any of four tiers — against a live “green” claimNO IMAGE ON THIS PAGE — and the reason is stated in both languages

WhatsApp Louis about Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2 The register position The tenure contradiction

Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency · +6010 906 6685. Every figure on this page names the publisher that carried it, and where two sources disagree this page prints both and does not pick a winner.

The licence is real, current, and does not reach this parkBINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., code 9795, licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R), 11 Jun 2023 – 10 Jun 2028, status Aktif. Six registrations, every one residential or serviced apartment, not one industrial, not one in Daerah Sepang. This is the strongest “outside the Act” proof available: the licence existed and could not be used.

The developer is legally named AND numbered on its own project pageBINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., 200401015463 (0653966-W), printed in the footer of the project’s own page on the developer’s site. That is the one buyer-protection point this developer scores outright, and it is worth saying: you can look the company up.

Every register field here is STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE, not cleanperatusSiap cannot be read. pindaanTempohSerahKosong cannot exist. iklan is not an empty array but a field with no record to sit in. And status.keseluruhan cannot be read, so Lewat — the late flag — CANNOT BE CHECKED. That is not “not flagged” and it is not “clean”.

The tenure is a five-surface mess and it is printed as oneLeasehold on StarProperty news, on the EdgeProp advertorial and in PropertyGuru’s structured field; freehold in PropertyGuru’s description text on the same two listings and on StarProperty’s own developer directory. No lease term, no expiry, and silence from the developer. Only a title search closes it.

The district is an inference, and the weakest leg is namedNo filing, no plan-approval reference, and all seven Binastra registrations print the plan field as Tiada maklumat. Four ranked locality legs carry it. The weakest is a subsales portal taxonomy which files the taman under Sepang and mukim Dengkil but then rolls the town up to “Cyberjaya”, which is wrong.

“Binastra” already means something else on this siteThree published pages here name Binastra Builders Sdn Bhd — the MAIN CONTRACTOR to a different developer. That is a different company in a different role, and no reachable source establishes a corporate relationship between it, the listed Binastra Corporation Berhad and the BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD. that is building this park. Nothing is implied here.

Answer block

Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2, at a glance

Every cell names the publisher that carried it. Where a register field would normally sit, this table says STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE rather than not flagged — there is no record to carry the field, and an absent record is not a clean bill of health. Where two sources disagree, both are printed.

Legal regime: ENTIRELY OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act 1966The Act reaches housing accommodation. A three-storey factory is not housing accommodation, so no licence, no permit and no registration CAN exist for this park. The correct legal position, not a missing document.
KPKT registration: NONE — no record of any kindNo registered scheme name, no project code, no register entry. Register searched 21 October 2026 with a positive control run first, so the zero is a real zero.
Developer licence: EXISTS, IS LIVE — AND DOES NOT REACH THIS PARKBINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., code 9795, licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R), 11 Jun 2023 – 10 Jun 2028. Six registrations, all housing or serviced apartment. This is not “never issued” and not “lapsed” — it is issued, current, and legally incapable of covering a factory.
Advertising & sales permit: DOES NOT EXIST for this projectSo lapse-versus-current CANNOT BE ASSESSED, and nothing on this page may be presented as permit validity. The licence validity above is a DIFFERENT instrument and says nothing whatever about this park.
Filed statutory advertisement: NONE — and none is required outside the ActNo filed brochure, no filed newspaper advertisement, no statutory particulars block. There is no primary document to read on the product, which is why every product figure here is labelled with its publisher.
Statutory sale contract: NONE — no Schedule G or HNo statutory delivery period. No statutory liquidated damages. No section 7A housing development account. No statutory defect liability period. No Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Whatever the developer offers is a freely drafted commercial contract.
Licensed developer, named and numbered: BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD.200401015463 (0653966-W) — printed on the project’s own page on the developer’s site, which is more than most unlicensed projects manage. The company can be looked up.
Tenure: CONTRADICTED ACROSS FIVE SURFACES — NOT RESOLVED HERELeasehold: StarProperty news, the EdgeProp advertorial, and PropertyGuru’s structured field on two listings. Freehold: PropertyGuru’s description text on those same two listings, and StarProperty’s own developer directory. Developer’s own page: silent. No lease term, no expiry date, anywhere.
Category of land use on the title: NOT PUBLISHED BY ANYBODYLight, medium or heavy industrial — nobody says. No restriction in interest, no charge or chargee, no express condition is published either. A land-title search is the document that closes all of it.
Individual or strata title: NOT PUBLISHEDOn 21 three-storey standalone factory units individual titles are the likely answer — and nobody states it, so this page does not either.
Units and built form: 21 units — 20 semi-detached factories + 1 bungalow factoryThree storeys, 1 block. EdgeProp, StarProperty and PropertyGuru’s structured field all say 21. ⚠ One PropertyGuru listing’s body text says “12 industrial units”. Unresolved; the 21 has three surfaces.
Land area, the parcel: 7.1 acresEdgeProp and StarProperty agree exactly, and StarProperty qualifies it “7.1 acres (leasehold development)”. Plot ratio and lot coverage — the measures that actually matter on an industrial park — are NOT PUBLISHED, and no density figure appears here.
Built-up per unit: 6,373 – 10,331 sq ft — and CONTRADICTEDEdgeProp as one range; StarProperty splits it Type A/B 6,373 – 9,938 and Type C 10,331. ⚠ PropertyGuru’s project panel lists SIX larger figures — 10,917 / 11,593 / 12,270 / 13,172 / 14,095 / 15,654 sq ft — and says units run “as large as 16,964 sq ft”. EVERY ONE of those exceeds the editorial maximum. UNRESOLVED.
Land area per unit: 8,072 – 17,701 sq ftEdgeProp as one range; StarProperty splits it A/B 8,072 – 14,672 and C 17,701. Lot configurations 35ft × 116ft, 36ft × 67ft and 48ft × 83ft are published and NOT mapped to type letters by anyone, so this page does not map them either.
Floor loading: 10 kN/m² ground floor · 5 kN/m² upper warehouse levelEdgeProp and StarProperty agree EXACTLY. This is the one hard engineering figure on the page that is double-sourced, and it is worth more than any adjective in the marketing.
Floor-to-floor height: 27 ft in the factory section · 15 ft and 12 ft in the general areaEdgeProp gives all three figures; StarProperty prints only “up to 27 feet” — not a contradiction, but the single number would mislead if used alone.
Power supply per unit: NOT PUBLISHED BY ANY SOURCENo amperage. No phase. On an industrial unit that is one of the first three questions a tenant or an operator asks, and no publisher answers it. Solar photovoltaic provision is claimed; the incoming supply is not stated.
Goods handling: 1.5-tonne service lift hoist · three-way opening door system · 40-ft container driveway accessBoth publishers agree on all three. Motorised roller shutters are claimed by both and NO dimension is published by anybody.
Parking: NO BAY COUNT ANYWHERE“Ample parking bays” and “ample car parks”. An unquantified adjective on a product whose buyers need lorry and container bays.
Completion: CONTRADICTED: 1Q2027 vs Nov 20261Q2027 on the EdgeProp advertorial, which also dates the launch to April 2025; Nov 2026 in PropertyGuru’s structured field; NOT STATED by StarProperty or by the developer. And none of them is contractual, because there is no statutory contract to carry a date.
Construction stage: STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLENo peratusSiap exists and no source states a construction stage at all. The developer’s own page says Status: Current and “now open for sale” — a SALES status, not a construction status. Sold is not built.
Late-delivery flag Lewat: CANNOT BE CHECKEDNot “not flagged”. Not “clean”. status.keseluruhan cannot be read because there is no record to read it from.
Price: NOT PUBLISHED ON THIS PAGE, AT ALLNo advertisement was ever filed, so there is no filed statutory selling-price range — and where none exists the house rule is to publish no price and to say that is the rule. The real figure comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.
Green rating: NO ENTRY on any of GreenRE’s four tiersAnd this one is a GENUINE negative rather than an inconclusive one, because the project’s whole certifiable window sits inside the readable range on three tiers and Platinum is readable in full. The project is nevertheless marketed as “green, sustainable”. No certification scheme is named by anybody. A feature list is not a rating.
Awards: NONE claimed for this park by anybodyAnd nothing is borrowed. The developer’s site has no awards or certification page at all.
Imagery: NONE on this pageNo verifiable image of this park is published whose subject this page could establish, and we will not publish one whose subject we cannot establish. The reason is set out in full in the register section below.

Ask Louis for the contract, the title and the price list

Explore related topics

Louis covers Puchong, the Sepang corridor and the whole Klang Valley — residential, commercial and industrial. These are the pages a buyer looking at a factory lot usually reads next.

Six things this page exists to tell you

Not one of the six is in a brochure, and three of them come off a government register the developer did not choose to publish. That is the whole argument for reading a page like this one before reading a marketing site.

⚠

There is no registration at all — and here is exactly what that costs you

No prescribed Schedule G or H contract. No statutory liquidated damages if delivery runs late. No section 7A housing development account ring-fencing your progress payments. No filed delivery period and no filed completion date. No statutory defect liability period. No KPKT register entry to check. No Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Every one of those is a creature of the Housing Development Act 1966, and the Act reaches housing accommodation. A factory is not housing accommodation. So this is not a developer failing to file something — it is a product class the Act does not cover, and the practical consequence is that the developer’s own contract, and your own solicitor, is the entire protection you have.

🔍

The licence question is closed BY CODE — and the answer is the sharpest in this series

BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD. holds a LIVE developer licence. 9795/06-2028/0866(R), valid 11 June 2023 to 10 June 2028, developer code 9795, status Aktif, six registered projects. Every one of the six is residential or serviced apartment. Not one is industrial. Not one is in Daerah Sepang. AND ONE OF THEM IS IN THE SAME LOCALITY: 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong, 972 units, Daerah Petaling. So the licence existed, it was current, it was in the right locality, it was on the same licensee — and this park is on none of it, because a factory cannot be licensed. The walk closes cleanly on both Binastra licences: 9795-7 and 31332-2 both return CLIENT_ERROR, reconciling exactly against the register’s own bilanganProjek counts of 6 and 1. Nothing was missed by stopping.

🔑

Nobody can tell you whether the land is freehold or leasehold

Five published surfaces, and two publishers contradict THEMSELVES. Leasehold on StarProperty’s newsroom report, on the EdgeProp advertorial, and in PropertyGuru’s structured property-details field on two separate listings by two different agents. Freehold in PropertyGuru’s own description text on those same two listings, and on StarProperty’s own developer directory. The developer’s own project page says nothing at all. No lease term and no expiry date is published anywhere by anyone. The weight favours leasehold — it is what both editorial surfaces say and what the structured database field says. The freehold readings are not noise either: they may describe the EARLIER, separate Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti phase, which carries its own tenure label. This page does not adjudicate it. On an industrial asset tenure is the first question a buyer, a banker and a valuer each ask, and only a land-title search answers it.

📄

The district is an INFERENCE, and this page says why rather than hiding it

The usual method is to read the district off the filed building-plan approval prefix. That derivation is IMPOSSIBLE here, on two counts. First, there is no filing, so there is no prefix. Second, the sibling-registration route fails too: all seven Binastra registrations print Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan and No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan as Tiada maklumat. So no prefix is claimed and the district is carried on four ranked locality legs instead, with the weakest named: a subsales portal’s taxonomy that files the taman under Selangor, Sepang and mukim Dengkil — and then rolls the town up to “Cyberjaya”, which is wrong. AND THE COUNTER-EVIDENCE IS PRINTED: 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong is filed under Daerah PETALING. Binastra files Puchong projects under Petaling when they are in Petaling. Every consumer source for this park says only “Puchong”, which a buyer reads as Petaling territory. Daerah Sepang here is a ranked inference, not a filed fact.

⚙

The engineering that IS published is good, double-sourced, and all there is

Floor loading 10 kN/m² on the ground floor and 5 kN/m² on the upper warehouse level — EdgeProp and StarProperty agree exactly. A 27-ft factory floor-to-floor height, motorised roller shutters, a 1.5-tonne service lift hoist, a three-way opening door system, driveway access for 40-ft containers and solar photovoltaic provision per unit — both publishers agree on every one. AND THEN IT STOPS. No power supply figure in amps or phase exists on any surface. No roller-shutter dimension. No dock leveller, no turning radius, no sprinkler or fire class, no water or gas provision, no bay count, no units-per-floor. The developer’s own project page publishes NO specification at all — one sentence of green-feature copy, a facade image and two logos. Every substantive number on this page comes from somewhere other than the developer’s own site, and that is a finding about the developer.

🏠

Two sources disagree about unit size by more than 6,000 square feet

The editorial range is 6,373 to 10,331 sq ft. PropertyGuru’s project panel publishes SIX figures — 10,917, 11,593, 12,270, 13,172, 14,095 and 15,654 sq ft — and says units run “as large as 16,964 sq ft”. Every single portal figure exceeds the editorial MAXIMUM. Two explanations are available and neither is confirmed: the portal may be carrying LAND areas inside a built-up field, or it may be mixing in the earlier phase. A remaining-stock explanation was tested and does not apply — there is no register maximum to raise, and in any case a stock explanation cannot lift a maximum above a published one. UNRESOLVED, and printed as such rather than averaged into a tidy range.

Project DNA

What is documented, what is contradicted, and what is simply absent

On a licensed housing development this section is a statutory spine. Here the spine comes off the developer’s own entry in the ministry’s register of licensed developers — which proves, from a government record, that this park is outside the Act and what that means — and off two trade publications for the product itself. Read the three columns below as three different kinds of knowledge: what a government register establishes, what the trade press reports, and what nobody publishes at all. Nothing in the third column is estimated, interpolated or borrowed from a sibling project.

21units — 20 semi-detached + 1 bungalow factory

3storeys — two surfaces agree; the developer states none

7.1acres — two surfaces agree exactly

10 / 5kN/m² floor loading — double-sourced, ground / upper

27 ftfactory floor-to-floor — two surfaces

6,373–10,331sq ft built-up — and a portal contradicts all of it

8,072–17,701sq ft of land per unit

1.5 tservice lift hoist — both publishers

9795developer code — SIX registrations, this park on NONE

0filed advertisements, permits, registrations and published prices on this page

Three kinds of knowledge about one factory park

The left column is a government register and it is the strongest material on this page. The middle column is two trade publications, one of which is a PAID advertorial and is labelled as one wherever it is used. The right column is what nobody publishes, each line paired with the document that would close it.

ESTABLISHED by the ministry’s own register

KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects, read 21 October 2026, with a positive control run first so that every zero is a real zero

The licensee exists, is named and is numbered: BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., developer code 9795.
Its licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R) is LIVE, 11 June 2023 to 10 June 2028, status Aktif, with no flagged offence.
It carries SIX registrations: 9795-1 Taman Kinrara Seksyen Ii (169 units, Petaling, Siap Dengan CFO), 9795-2 The Park @ Bukit Serdang (47, Petaling), 9795-3 Sinaran @ Wangsa Maju (206, WP KL), 9795-4 Trion @ Kl (1,344, WP KL), 9795-5 Trion 2 @ Kl (600, WP KL) and 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong (972, Daerah Petaling).
EVERY ONE IS RESIDENTIAL OR SERVICED APARTMENT. NOT ONE IS INDUSTRIAL. NOT ONE IS IN DAERAH SEPANG. NOT ONE IS A BUSINESS PARK.
The walk closes cleanly: 9795-7 returns CLIENT_ERROR against the register’s own bilanganProjek: 6.
A second Binastra licensee exists — BINASTRA SYNERGY SDN. BHD., code 31332, licence 31332/03-2031/0079(A) — and it is a single-project vehicle: 31332-1 Binastra Cochrane, 830 units, 50 storeys, WP KL, Belum Mula at peratusSiap 0.00. 31332-2 returns CLIENT_ERROR against bilanganProjek: 1.
⚠ AND THE COMPARISON THAT MAKES THE WHOLE PAGE CONCRETE: 31332-1 carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with a +24-month approved extension and a new vacant-possession date of 28 July 2031. That is the statutory delivery machinery working in public, on the same brand, in the same year — and a buyer in this factory park gets none of it.
Both Binastra licensees share one registered office in the register: No. 10-1, Jalan Bk5a/3b, Bandar Kinrara 47100 — and BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD.’s own row prints the register’s Tiada Maklumat Daerah in the district slot. Never read a locality off a licensee record: here the register itself declines to state one.

REPORTED by two trade surfaces, and labelled as such

EdgeProp content 1914758, December 2025 — a PAID PROJECT-REVIEW ADVERTORIAL · StarProperty news 132973, 2026 · two PropertyGuru agent listings, and a StarProperty developer-directory entry

21 units, as 20 semi-detached factories and one bungalow factory — the advertorial; StarProperty agrees on 21 and PropertyGuru’s structured field reads 21 total units in 1 block. ⚠ One PropertyGuru body text says “12 industrial units”.
Three storeys — StarProperty and PropertyGuru. The developer states no storey count at all.
7.1 acres — both publishers, exactly; StarProperty qualifies it “7.1 acres (leasehold development)”.
Built-up 6,373 – 10,331 sq ft and land 8,072 – 17,701 sq ft — the advertorial as single ranges; StarProperty splits them as Type A/B 6,373 – 9,938 on 8,072 – 14,672, and Type C 10,331 on 17,701.
Lot configurations 35ft × 116ft, 36ft × 67ft and 48ft × 83ft — the advertorial, which expressly does not map them to type letters. So this page does not map them either.
FLOOR LOADING 10 kN/m² ground, 5 kN/m² upper warehouse level — EdgeProp and StarProperty agree EXACTLY, and this is the single best-corroborated hard figure on the page.
Floor-to-floor 27 ft in the factory section, 15 ft and 12 ft in the general area — the advertorial. StarProperty prints only “up to 27 feet”.
Motorised roller shutters, a three-way opening door system, a 1.5-tonne service lift hoist, 40-ft container driveway access, solar photovoltaic provision per unit, rainwater harvesting, brick-wall frontage fencing with a signage area, an individual guard house per unit and a prayer room — both publishers.
⚠ AND THE ONE PLACE THE TWO LISTS DIVERGE HAS A REAL COST ATTACHED: EdgeProp says CCTV, alarm points and EV charging ARE provided; StarProperty says they are “ready for installation”. “Ready” is shell provision. Unresolved.
⚠ AND BOTH LISTS AGREE ALMOST ITEM FOR ITEM, WHICH IS ITSELF EVIDENCE: they are the same developer press pack rather than two independent assessments. Counted as ONE source of corroboration, not two.
Four distances, every one from the PAID advertorial and nowhere else: Lingkaran Putrajaya 8.2 km, Maju Expressway 12.5 km, Kuala Lumpur International Airport 36 km, West Port at Port Klang 51 km.
Completion 1Q2027 (advertorial, which also dates the launch to April 2025) against Nov 2026 (PropertyGuru’s structured field). Neither is contractual.
One agent listing gives a single real unit at a built-up of 9,938 sq ft on land of 11,751 sq ft, and another gives 6,373 sq ft as the floor — which independently corroborates both ends of the editorial range.
⚠ The advertorial is a PAID PLACEMENT and the independence test collapses it into the developer. It quotes nobody, carries no byline-independent reporting and sits in EdgeProp’s own advertising carousel. Treated as the developer’s own copy on a portal’s masthead.
⚠ And “StarProperty” is not one source either: its newsroom says LEASEHOLD and its developer directory says FREEHOLD, and that directory also prints a visibly corrupt price value for an unrelated sibling project.

NOT PUBLISHED BY ANYBODY — each with the document that would close it

and on an industrial lot the first four of these are the ones that decide whether a bank will lend, whether the building can do the job, and whether you can ever sell it on

TENURE, DECIDED · the lease term · the lease expiry date — a land-title search on the parcel, or the title particulars in the sale and purchase agreement.
The CATEGORY OF LAND USE and the express condition on the title — light, medium or heavy industrial — the title search, or the Majlis Perbandaran Sepang and PTG Selangor land record.
Whether units come on individual title or on strata title — the SPA and the title search.
Whether state consent is needed to transfer, and any premium — the title search plus the current PTG Selangor circular. Relevant here precisely because the weight of evidence says leasehold.
Any restriction in interest, charge or chargee — the title search.
The lot or PT number · the mukim · the approving authority BY NAME · the building-plan approval reference — the Majlis Perbandaran Sepang planning-approval record. That one document would also settle the district question.
THE SPA’S OWN DELIVERY PERIOD, ITS LATE-DELIVERY DAMAGES RATE AND ITS DEFECT-LIABILITY PERIOD — the SPA itself. On a non-Act product these are contractual rather than statutory and NOBODY publishes them. This is the single biggest thing the buyer is giving up, and no source on earth currently tells you what you get in its place.
Power supply per unit, in amps and phase — the developer’s own specification sheet.
Roller-shutter dimensions · dock levellers · turning radius · sprinkler and fire class · water and gas provision · units per floor · lorry and car bays per unit · plot ratio and lot coverage — the specification sheet.
Which built-up belongs to which type letter, and what Type C actually is — the developer’s type schedule. StarProperty prints the letter C and not its configuration; EdgeProp prints “one bungalow factory” and no letter.
Whether a development order has issued, and the completion-certificate pathway — the local authority record.
The main contractor, the consultants and the financier — a construction-industry record or the site hoarding. None was reachable: the public construction search endpoint returns an error even on its own known positives, and no identifier was guessed.
The service-charge and sinking-fund regime, and who manages the park — the SPA and the deed of mutual covenants.
Construction stage and take-up — nothing public exists. No source states either, and the developer’s “now open for sale” is a sales status.
Any green rating being pursued — a GreenRE or GBI registration, and there is none.
Every distance not in the four above — the developer’s own location sheet.

The documented sequence — and the two dates that disagree with each other

2004BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD. is incorporated, on the evidence of its own registration number 200401015463 (0653966-W) — the 2004 prefix is the incorporation year

11 Jun 2023Developer licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R) takes effect. A LIVE licence — and it will never cover this park

11 Jun 20249795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong’s permit period begins: 972 units, Daerah PETALING. Proof that this licensee files PUCHONG projects — and files them under Petaling when they are in Petaling

Apr 2025The business park is launched, on the EdgeProp advertorial’s own dating. No registration, no permit and no filed advertisement accompanies it, and none is required

Dec 2025The EdgeProp project-review advertorial is published — the richest single source on the product, and a PAID PLACEMENT: the units, the built-up and land ranges, the lot configurations, the 10 / 5 kN/m² floor loading, the floor-to-floor heights and the four distances all trace to it

2 Jul 2026On the sibling licence, 31332-1 Binastra Cochrane’s permit period begins — and that registration carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, +24 months, new vacant possession 28 Jul 2031. The machinery this buyer does not get

Nov 2026Completion, on PropertyGuru’s structured field — and the advertorial says 1Q2027 instead. Printed as a disagreement, not as a date

21 Oct 2026Everything on this page read and recorded. Register searched against a healthy positive control and both Binastra licences walked to a clean close; all four GreenRE tiers read in one session; the developer’s own site, its sitemap and its project-collection index read in full

1Q 2027Completion, on the EdgeProp advertorial — the later of the two published answers. Treated here as neither governing nor dismissed, because NEITHER is contractual: there is no statutory contract to carry a completion date, and no filed date exists to be late against

10 Jun 2028The developer licence expires. A date about the licensee’s HOUSING business, and about nothing on this page — it must never be presented as this park’s permit validity

UnpublishedThe lease expiry date, IF the land is leasehold. Nobody publishes a term and nobody publishes an expiry. On leasehold land a bank and a resale buyer price the REMAINING term — so this is the date that compounds, and it is the one nobody will tell you

Ask Louis for the specification sheet and a title search

Layouts

The unit schedule — one marketed schedule, no filed one to set beside it

There is no filed schedule to compare the marketed one against, because there is no filing. And there is a second problem the sources create between them: the type letters A, B and C come from StarProperty, the 20-plus-1 split comes from EdgeProp, and NO SINGLE SOURCE GIVES BOTH. Nobody maps a built-up to a type letter. So any per-type table on this page would be this agent’s construction rather than a source’s, and none is built. No square-metre figure is published and none has been converted here.

NO LAYOUT IS PUBLISHED
for this type, or any other

`Type A` and `Type B` — three-storey semi-detached factories

Built-up 6,373 – 9,938 sq ft on land of 8,072 – 14,672 sq ft · StarProperty · 20 of the 21 units on EdgeProp’s split

two surfacesno per-type count publishedno built-up mapped to a letter

StarProperty prints the letters and the ranges. EdgeProp prints the 20-plus-1 split and no letters. Neither tells you how many units are an A and how many are a B, and neither attaches a built-up to either letter. One agent listing does give a single real unit — a built-up of 9,938 sq ft on land of 11,751 sq ft — which sits inside these ranges and corroborates the top end independently. A second gives 6,373 sq ft as the floor. Both ends of the editorial range therefore have independent support, which is more than most unlicensed projects manage.

Ask Louis for the type schedule

NO LAYOUT, NO ELEVATION
and no render whose subject can be established

`Type C` — the bungalow factory

Built-up 10,331 sq ft on land of 17,701 sq ft · StarProperty prints the letter, EdgeProp prints “1 bungalow factory” · ONE unit

configuration NOT stated by StarPropertystorey count NOT publishedone unit

EdgeProp says one of the 21 units is a bungalow factory. StarProperty prints a Type C with the largest built-up and the largest lot and does NOT state its configuration. Putting the two together is the obvious reading and it is still an inference, so this page prints both statements and lets them stand side by side. The storey count for this unit is NOT PUBLISHED by anybody — the three-storey figure is stated for the semi-detached units.

Ask Louis what Type C actually is

NO SITE PLAN IS PUBLISHED
by the developer, at all

The lot configurations — published, and deliberately not assigned

35ft × 116ft · 36ft × 67ft · 48ft × 83ft · EdgeProp advertorial

three configurationsEXPRESSLY not mapped to typesnothing inferred here

EdgeProp publishes three lot configurations and expressly does not say which type each belongs to. This page does not assign them either. Note also that a 36 by 67 foot lot is about 2,412 sq ft, which is far below the published land-area floor of 8,072 sq ft — so the three configurations cannot simply be the three land areas, and nobody explains the relationship. Unresolved, and recorded rather than tidied away.

Ask Louis for the lot schedule and the site plan

UNRESOLVED
two incompatible schedules, both printed

The six larger built-ups a portal publishes — and why they are not in the range above

10,917 / 11,593 / 12,270 / 13,172 / 14,095 / 15,654 sq ft, and “as large as 16,964 sq ft” · PropertyGuru project panel

every figure exceeds the editorial maximumUNRESOLVEDnot reconciled here

EVERY ONE of these six figures is larger than the 10,331 sq ft editorial maximum, and the “as large as 16,964” claim is larger still. Two explanations are available and neither is confirmed: the portal may be carrying LAND areas inside a built-up field, which is a well-known portal failure mode, or it may be mixing in the separate earlier phase. The remaining-stock explanation was tested and does not apply: there is no register maximum to raise, and a stock explanation cannot lift a maximum above a published one in any case. Both schedules are printed and neither is adopted.

Ask Louis which area schedule is the developer’s

NO SPECIFICATION SHEET
is published by the developer at all

The specifications that decide whether the building can do the job

Floor loading 10 / 5 kN/m² and a 27-ft factory floor-to-floor — published and double-sourced. POWER SUPPLY: NOT PUBLISHED BY ANYBODY

the engineering is goodthe power figure is the worst gapspecification sheet

What is published is genuinely useful and it is agreed by two surfaces: 10 kN/m² on the ground floor, 5 kN/m² on the upper warehouse level, 27 ft floor-to-floor in the factory section with 15 ft and 12 ft in the general area, motorised roller shutters, a 1.5-tonne service lift hoist, a three-way opening door system and driveway access for 40-ft containers. Then it stops. No power supply figure exists on any surface — no amperage, no phase — even though solar photovoltaic provision is claimed. No roller-shutter dimension. No dock leveller, turning radius, sprinkler class, fire class, water or gas provision. No units-per-floor and no bay count. “Ample parking bays” is the only answer either publisher gives on parking, on a product whose buyers need lorry and container bays by number.

Ask Louis for the power supply and the shutter sizes

REFUSED
a template field is not a fact

Bedrooms, bathrooms and other portal template artefacts

NOT A PROJECT FACT — and deliberately not carried here

portal template artefactrefused

The agent listings for this park sit in a portal template built for houses, and the template fields it fills in do not describe a factory. PropertyGuru’s own property TYPE field, by contrast, reads “Factory” — which is one of the six independent proofs on this page that the product class is industrial. The type field is carried. The template residue is not.

Ask Louis what the unit actually contains

No layout, elevation, floor plan, site plan or render is published by any source whose subject this page could establish, so none appears above. The developer’s own project page carries one facade image and two logos and no plan of any kind. Nothing here is converted into square metres, nothing is interpolated between the published ends of a range, and no built-up has been attached to a type letter that no source attaches it to.

Images

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.

Location

Taman Meranti Perdana, Pulau Meranti — and why the district is an inference

This is the part of the page that has to be read carefully, because the honest answer is not a clean one. No coordinate, no lot number, no PT number, no mukim and no building-plan approval reference is published for this park by anybody. The usual method — read the district off the filed plan-approval prefix — is IMPOSSIBLE here twice over: there is no filing to carry a prefix, and all seven Binastra registrations print the plan-approval field as Tiada maklumat, so even a sibling-registration leg is unavailable. So no prefix is claimed, and the district below is a RANKED INFERENCE that names its own weakest leg and prints its own counter-evidence.

Open in Google Maps

No coordinate publishedNo lot or PT number publishedNo mukim published — and this page does not assert oneDaerah Sepang — INFERRED, not filedApproving authority NOT NAMED by any source

Pulau Meranti and Taman Meranti Perdana are carried in Latin script on the Chinese version of this page as well, deliberately. Neither has an established Chinese rendering on this site or anywhere reachable, and inventing one would be worse than leaving it in Latin. Puchong, Sepang and Selangor do have established renderings here and are written in Chinese on that page.

How the district was reached — four ranked legs, weakest named

LEG 1, moderate: the project’s own name. It is called Pulau Meranti 2 by the developer, and Pulau Meranti is a village in Daerah Sepang, under Majlis Perbandaran Sepang, with postcodes 47100 and 47120. The developer’s own naming plus a tertiary source.
LEG 2, moderate: the postcode agrees. The published address is Jalan Meranti Perdana 2, Taman Meranti Perdana, 47100 Puchong — and 47100 is one of Pulau Meranti’s two postcodes.
LEG 3, strong but for a DIFFERENT TAMAN: this site has already settled Daerah Sepang three times on FILED evidence for “47100 Puchong” addresses, on plan prefixes in the MPSepang 600-34/1/… series. Every one of those three is a different taman — Taman Meranti Permai, Shorea Park, Bukit Puchong — and NOT Taman Meranti Perdana. So the precedent is strong about the postcode and silent about this parcel.
LEG 4, THE WEAKEST, AND IT IS NAMED AS SUCH: a subsales portal’s own taxonomy files Tmn Industri Meranti Perdana under Selangor, Sepang, mukim Dengkil, and Mukim Dengkil does cover Pulau Meranti. But the same taxonomy then rolls the town up to “Cyberjaya”, which is simply wrong. A portal taxonomy that is demonstrably wrong about one level of the hierarchy is weak evidence about another.
⚠ AND THE COUNTER-EVIDENCE, PRINTED BECAUSE IT IS REAL: the licensee’s own filed registration 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong is Daerah PETALING. Binastra files Puchong projects under Petaling when they are in Petaling — and every consumer source for THIS park says only “Puchong”, which a buyer naturally reads as Petaling and Subang Jaya territory.
Taman Meranti Perdana itself is named in no filed record, on no government register, and not even in the reference article for Pulau Meranti.
THE DOCUMENT THAT CLOSES IT: a building-plan approval reference in the MPSepang 600-34/1/… series — or an MBSJ.BGN.BP4.600-1/… reference, which would place it in Petaling instead — or the Majlis Perbandaran Sepang planning-approval record, or the land title’s own mukim and lot number.
One spelling note so nobody reads it as an error: filings in this council’s area name the authority both Majlis Perbandaran Sepang and Majlis Bandaraya Sepang. The council’s own upgrade is visible inside filed documents. Expect both.

Distances — four are published, and all four come off one PAID placement

Lingkaran Putrajaya — 8.2 km · EdgeProp advertorial · single-sourced
Maju Expressway (MEX) — 12.5 km · EdgeProp advertorial · single-sourced; StarProperty names MEX as an access route with no figure
Kuala Lumpur International Airport — 36 km · EdgeProp advertorial · single-sourced; StarProperty says only “near KLIA”
West Port, Port Klang — 51 km · EdgeProp advertorial · single-sourced; StarProperty says only “near Westport”
Cyberjaya City Centre MRT and MRT Cyberjaya Utara are NAMED with NO DISTANCE — that is the rail gap, and on an industrial product it matters less than it would on a residential one.
SKVE and ELITE are named as access routes with NO figure.
⚠ EVERY DISTANCE ON THIS PAGE COMES FROM ONE SURFACE, AND THAT SURFACE IS A PAID DEVELOPER PLACEMENT. They are labelled as developer figures and nothing has been estimated to fill the gaps.
NOT PUBLISHED, and an industrial buyer would ask for every one: drive time to KLIA cargo and to Westports; the distance to the SKVE, ELITE and LDP interchanges by name; the Puchong to Dengkil road frontage; the distance to Pusat Bandar Puchong, Bandar Puteri, Cyberjaya and Putrajaya; the nearest rail station WITH a figure; and the site’s own frontage road.
And one standing rule, applied: no distance, acreage or density on this page has been read off a developer site plan or location map. The developer publishes neither anyway.

What the park is, and what nobody says about it

21 factory units on 7.1 acres, in one block, three storeys for the semi-detached units.
Facilities both publishers claim: solar photovoltaic provision per unit, rainwater harvesting, brick-wall frontage fencing with a signage area, an individual guard house per unit, a prayer room, motorised roller shutters, a three-way opening door system, 40-ft container driveway access and a 1.5-tonne service lift hoist.
⚠ CCTV, alarm points and EV charging: EdgeProp says provided, StarProperty says “ready for installation”. That is a shell-provision difference with a real cost attached, and it is unresolved.
⚠ AND THE SENTENCE THAT GOVERNS THE WHOLE LIST: on a product with no filed advertisement and no statutory contract, NOTHING ON IT IS CONTRACTUALLY PROMISED. Nothing is marked “space only” or “subject to change” either — because there is no filed document in which such a marking could appear. What binds is the SPA, and nobody publishes it.
Plot ratio and lot coverage — the two measures that actually matter on an industrial park — are NOT PUBLISHED, so no density figure appears on this page. 21 units over 7.1 acres is arithmetically available and means nothing for a factory park, so it is not presented as a density.
THE EARLIER PHASE IS A SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT, NAMED ONCE HERE AND NOWHERE ELSE: Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti, with NO numeral, is a different, earlier development with its own tenure label and its own figures. The developer’s own homepage lists it separately. It is the probable source of the freehold readings. Nothing from it is carried onto this page.
And there are at least FOUR Binastra Business Parks: this one, the earlier Pulau Meranti phase, one at Alam Damai in Cheras (Kuala Lumpur, marked completed) and one at Subang Airport (marked upcoming). A source that says only “Binastra Business Park” has not identified this project, and the slug binastra-business-park-2 on the developer’s own site means Alam Damai, NOT “Pulau Meranti 2”.

No distance, address, coordinate or boundary on this page is estimated, and none is read off a developer map or site plan. The district is carried as an inference with its legs ranked and its weakest leg and its counter-evidence both printed, because that is what the evidence supports. Sources: EdgeProp content 1914758 (a paid project-review advertorial), StarProperty news 132973 and its developer directory entry 52, two PropertyGuru agent listings, the developer’s own project page and sitemap, the KPKT TEDUH register, and a subsales portal taxonomy — all read 21 October 2026.

The register position

What is on a register, and what is not — for Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2

On a licensed housing development this table is the statutory particulars block. Here it is a table of absences, and every cell names what was checked. Read the empty cells carefully: on this product NONE is usually the correct legal answer rather than a missing document — but CANNOT BE CHECKED is a third thing again, and where it applies the table says so instead of implying a clean result. One column on this table is not an absence at all: the developer licence EXISTS and is LIVE, and it still does not reach this park.

KPKT registration	Developer licence	Advertising & sales permit	Filed statutory advertisement	Statutory sale contract	Tenure & land category	Land area	Units & built form	Engineering	Completion date	Register progress fields	Price	Green rating & awards	Imagery
NONE. No registered scheme name, no project code, no register record of any kind. And it cannot exist: the Housing Development Act 1966 reaches housing accommodation, and a three-storey factory is not housing accommodation. Register searched 21 October 2026 with a positive control run first, which returned 16 licensees and 22 projects. The endpoint is healthy, so the zero is real.	EXISTS. IS LIVE. DOES NOT REACH THIS PARK. BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., code `9795`, licence `9795/06-2028/0866(R)`, 11 Jun 2023 – 10 Jun 2028, status `Aktif`, no flagged offence. SIX registrations, every one residential or serviced apartment, including `9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong`, 972 units, `Daerah Petaling`. Not “never issued”. Not “lapsed”. Issued, current, and legally incapable of covering a factory. Both licences walked to a clean close: `9795-7` and `31332-2` both return `CLIENT_ERROR`, reconciling against `bilanganProjek` 6 and 1.	DOES NOT EXIST for this project. Cannot exist for this product class. So nothing about this park was lodged with the ministry before it was advertised, there is no permit number, no permit validity and NO LAPSE QUESTION TO ASSESS. ⚠ The licence validity in the previous column is a DIFFERENT INSTRUMENT. Nothing on this page may be presented as this park’s permit validity.	NONE — and none is required outside the Act. No filed brochure, no filed newspaper advertisement, no statutory particulars block, no filed price band, no filed completion date. There is no primary document to read on the product, which is why every product figure on this page is labelled with the publisher that carried it — and why two of them disagree in public.	NONE — no Schedule G or H. No statutory delivery period. No statutory liquidated damages for late delivery. No section 7A housing development account. No statutory defect liability period. No KPKT recourse. No Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Whatever contract the developer offers is a freely drafted commercial agreement, and its delivery period, its late-delivery damages rate and its defect-liability period are all unpublished. Appoint your own solicitor before you sign anything.	⚠ CONTRADICTED ACROSS FIVE SURFACES, AND NOT RESOLVED HERE. LEASEHOLD — StarProperty news; the EdgeProp advertorial; PropertyGuru’s structured property-details field on two listings. FREEHOLD — PropertyGuru’s description text on those same two listings; StarProperty’s own developer directory. The developer’s own project page: SILENT. NO lease term and NO expiry date is published by anybody. Weight of evidence: leasehold. The freehold readings may belong to the separate EARLIER phase. PRINTED UNADJUDICATED — only a land-title search closes it. Category of land use, express condition, restriction in interest, charge and chargee: ALL UNPUBLISHED.	7.1 acres — the parcel. EdgeProp and StarProperty agree exactly, and StarProperty qualifies it “7.1 acres (leasehold development)”. Land per unit 8,072 – 17,701 sq ft. NO lot or PT number. NO mukim. NO coordinate. Plot ratio and lot coverage NOT PUBLISHED, so NO density figure appears on this page.	21 units — 20 semi-detached factories + 1 bungalow factory, 3 storeys, 1 block. EdgeProp, StarProperty and PropertyGuru’s structured field all say 21. ⚠ One PropertyGuru body text says “12 industrial units”. Unresolved; the 21 has three surfaces. Built-up 6,373 – 10,331 sq ft — ⚠ and a portal publishes SIX larger figures plus “as large as 16,964 sq ft”, every one above the editorial maximum. UNRESOLVED. No source maps a built-up to a type letter, so this page does not either.	FLOOR LOADING 10 kN/m² ground floor, 5 kN/m² upper warehouse level — EdgeProp and StarProperty agree EXACTLY. The best-corroborated hard figure on the page. Floor-to-floor 27 ft in the factory section, 15 ft and 12 ft in the general area. 1.5-tonne service lift hoist · three-way opening door system · 40-ft container driveway access · motorised roller shutters — both publishers. ⚠ POWER SUPPLY: NOT PUBLISHED BY ANY SOURCE. No amperage, no phase. No shutter dimension, no dock leveller, no turning radius, no sprinkler or fire class, no water or gas provision, no bay count.	⚠ CONTRADICTED, AND NEITHER ANSWER IS CONTRACTUAL. `1Q2027` — EdgeProp advertorial, which dates the launch to April 2025. `Nov 2026` — PropertyGuru’s structured field. NOT STATED — StarProperty, and the developer’s own page. There is no Schedule G or H to carry a contractual date, so there is no filed date for anything to be late against. Printed as a disagreement, never as a date.	ALL STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE — which is NOT the same as clean. `peratusSiap`: CANNOT BE READ; no source states a construction stage. `pindaanTempohSerahKosong`: CANNOT EXIST — no statutory delivery period was ever fixed. `iklan`: not an empty array but a field with no record to sit in. ⚠ `status.keseluruhan`: CANNOT BE READ, THEREFORE `Lewat` CANNOT BE CHECKED. Not “not flagged”. Not “clean”. `Baki Unit`: tested and INAPPLICABLE — there is no register maximum to raise.	NOT PUBLISHED ON THIS PAGE, AT ALL. No advertisement was ever filed, so NO filed statutory selling-price range exists — and where none exists the house rule is to publish no price and to say that is the rule. Four surfaces carry figures and all four are withheld, each for a stated reason, in the disclosure below. NO rent is transcribed on this page either. The real figure comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.	NO GreenRE ENTRY on any of four tiers — and this is a GENUINE negative, not an inconclusive one: the project’s whole certifiable window sits inside the readable range on three tiers, and the fourth is readable in full to 2015. ⚠ And the project IS marketed as “green, sustainable”. No certification scheme is named by anybody. A feature list is not a rating, and this page does not claim a certification for it. Green Building Index directory unreadable — INCONCLUSIVE, never reported as a negative. BCA Green Mark, LEED and the construction-quality score: searched, NO result for any. NO AWARD claimed by anybody, and nothing borrowed from a sibling.	NONE on this page, in either language. Fourteen distinct project-depicting assets located; ONE survived the subject test; it still does not ship, because ALL FOUR routes to a pixel dimension on its host are closed — including a media index that returns an EMPTY ARRAY to an unfiltered query on a live, image-bearing site. Nine portal photographs refused from their URLs alone. Three advertorial creatives refused because a slogan is not a subject. One probable location map refused by name. Nothing borrowed from the three OTHER Binastra Business Parks, and no filename guessed.

Scroll the table sideways. Every cell is a statement about a REGISTER, a FILING or a PUBLISHED SOURCE, and the publisher is named wherever one exists. Where two publishers disagree, both are printed and neither is adopted. Where a field cannot be read, the table says CANNOT BE CHECKED rather than implying a clean result.

Sources: the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects, searched 21 October 2026 against a positive control and walked registration by registration on both Binastra licences to a clean close; EdgeProp content 1914758 of December 2025, which is a PAID project-review advertorial and is labelled as one everywhere it is used; StarProperty news 132973 and StarProperty developer-directory entry 52, which contradict each other on tenure; two PropertyGuru agent listings, which contradict themselves on tenure; the developer’s own project page, homepage, sitemap and project-collection index; all four GreenRE tiers, read in one session; and a subsales portal taxonomy. Published 21 October 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.

Why there is no registration, stated as law rather than as a gap

A developer licence and an advertising and sales permit are required under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, and the Act reaches housing accommodation. A three-storey factory on an industrial parcel is not housing accommodation. So no registration, no licence and no permit CAN exist for this park, and their absence is not a failure by anybody. AND ON THIS PROJECT THE PROOF IS THE STRONGEST THIS SITE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PUBLISH, BECAUSE IT COMES OFF THE DEVELOPER’S OWN REGISTER RECORD RATHER THAN OFF AN ABSENCE. The ministry’s register was searched on 21 October 2026 with a positive control run FIRST, so that every zero below is a real zero. The control returned 16 licensees and 22 projects: the endpoint is healthy. The brand search returns TWO licensees and SEVEN projects, and both licensees were walked registration by registration to a clean close. ONE: BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., developer code 9795, licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R), valid 11 June 2023 to 10 June 2028, status Aktif, no flagged offence, SIX registrations. Those six are Taman Kinrara Seksyen Ii (169 units, Petaling), The Park @ Bukit Serdang (47, Petaling), Sinaran @ Wangsa Maju (206, Kuala Lumpur), Trion @ Kl (1,344, Kuala Lumpur), Trion 2 @ Kl (600, Kuala Lumpur) and Suria Garden @ Puchong (972, Daerah Petaling). EVERY ONE IS RESIDENTIAL OR SERVICED APARTMENT. NOT ONE IS INDUSTRIAL. NOT ONE IS IN DAERAH SEPANG. NOT ONE IS A BUSINESS PARK. Querying the next slot, 9795-7, returns CLIENT_ERROR — reconciling exactly against the register’s own bilanganProjek: 6. The walk is complete, not abandoned. TWO: BINASTRA SYNERGY SDN. BHD., code 31332, licence 31332/03-2031/0079(A), with exactly ONE registration — Binastra Cochrane, 830 units, 50 storeys, Kuala Lumpur, Belum Mula at peratusSiap 0.00. 31332-2 returns CLIENT_ERROR against bilanganProjek: 1. That walk closes cleanly too. SO HERE IS THE SENTENCE THIS WHOLE PAGE IS BUILT ON. The licensee had a LIVE developer licence. It was current. It was on the right company. And one of its six registrations — 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong, 972 units in Daerah Petaling — proves it files PUCHONG projects on that very licence when they are housing. This business park is on NONE of it. Not because the developer declined to file, but because a factory is not a housing development and CANNOT be licensed. That is the cleanest available proof that the Act does not reach this product, and it comes from a government record rather than from an argument. AND THE COMPARISON THAT TURNS THE LAW INTO SOMETHING A BUYER CAN FEEL. The licensee’s own residential sibling 31332-1 Binastra Cochrane carries pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya — an APPROVED +24-month extension of the statutory delivery period, with a new vacant-possession date of 28 July 2031, printed on a public register for anybody to read. That is the statutory delivery machinery working, visibly, on the same brand, in the same year. A buyer in this factory park gets none of it: no statutory delivery period to extend, no public field recording an extension, and no register entry to look at. What the buyer gets instead is whatever the developer’s own contract says, and nobody publishes that.

Every register field here is STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE — which is not the same as clean

Read this one carefully, because the difference between “checked and clean” and “no record to check” is the difference between reassurance and nothing at all. peratusSiap, the construction-progress percentage: CANNOT BE READ. No percentage exists on any public surface and no source states a construction stage at all. pindaanTempohSerahKosong, the delivery-period amendment field: CANNOT EXIST. There is no Schedule G and no Schedule H, so no statutory delivery period was ever fixed and no extension question can even be asked. iklan, the filed-advertisement array: not an empty array but genuinely non-existent — there is no record to carry the field. That is a fourth state, distinct from a populated array, an empty one, and an unreachable one. rekodLesenTerdahulu, the licence history: present for the LICENCE — the (R) renewal suffix on 9795 and the (A) on 31332 — and IRRELEVANT to this project, which sits on neither. ⚠ status.keseluruhan, the overall status field: CANNOT BE READ — AND THEREFORE Lewat, THE LATE FLAG, CANNOT BE CHECKED. That is not “not flagged”. It is not “clean”. It is unavailable, and the distinction matters more here than on most pages, because two published completion answers disagree and neither is contractual — so there is no filed date for anything to be late against. Baki Unit, the remaining-stock field: tested here and INAPPLICABLE. There is no register maximum to raise, and a remaining-stock explanation could not lift a published maximum in any case. Every one of those six lines is a field that exists on a licensed housing development and cannot exist here. None of them is a developer failing. All of them are things a buyer of a licensed home can check and a buyer of this factory cannot.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction on his own company’s project materials is absolute, and this paragraph is the only place on this page where these words appear at all. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion and no commission figure is published here, in either language, in the body or in this page’s structured data. No yield, no return projection, no rental-return rate, no leaseback and no guaranteed-rental rate is published either — and on an INDUSTRIAL asset that is worth stating twice, because return figures are the ordinary currency of industrial marketing. A published rent is the DIRECT input to a forbidden return figure, so not one rent figure is transcribed on this page. This park has live rental listings; nothing from them is carried here. AND THE LARGEST REFUSAL ON THIS PROJECT IS THE PRICE ITSELF, SO HERE IS THE FULL REASONING RATHER THAN A SILENCE. On a licensed housing development this site publishes the filed statutory selling-price range out of the developer’s own legally filed advertisement, because that is a public statutory record, and labels it as one — always with the line that it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. HERE NO ADVERTISEMENT WAS EVER FILED, BECAUSE NONE IS REQUIRED OUTSIDE THE ACT. SO THERE IS NO FILED RANGE, AND THERE IS NOTHING OF THAT KIND TO PUBLISH. Where no filed statutory range exists the house rule is to publish no price at all and to say that is the rule, and that is what is happening on this page. FOUR SEPARATE SURFACES DO CARRY FIGURES, AND EVERY ONE IS WITHHELD. Each for its own stated reason. ONE: the developer’s own site carries an asterisked “from” figure for this exact project, with terms and conditions applied. An asterisked “from” is conditional, and a conditional figure is barred even when it is not below any filed minimum — and here there is no filed minimum for it to be below. TWO, AND THIS IS THE REASONING WORTH SPELLING OUT BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE A SECOND, INDEPENDENT SOURCE AND IS NOT: the EdgeProp project review prints a range WITHOUT an asterisk. That article is a PAID PROJECT-REVIEW ADVERTORIAL. It sits in EdgeProp’s own advertising carousel, quotes nobody, and carries no byline-independent reporting. The independence test is run on the SURFACE, not on the masthead — so the advertorial collapses INTO the developer, and once the two are one publisher, the ASTERISKED version governs. Barred. That collapse is itself the finding: what looked like two surfaces, one conditional and one clean, is one surface and it is conditional. THREE: a developer-directory page carries a per-unit range — for the EARLIER, separate phase of this park, with no numeral. It reconciles against no filed row, because there is none. An unreconcilable figure is withheld on that ground alone, without needing to prove anything about its direction. And that same directory row prints a visibly corrupt price value for an unrelated sibling project, which is a data-quality warning about the whole surface. FOUR: seven agent listings carry per-unit asking prices. Agent asking prices with no filed floor to measure them against. Withheld. ON THE GROSS DEVELOPMENT VALUE, AND WHY ITS ABSENCE IS NOT A REFUSAL: nobody publishes one for this project, so the question does not arise. Where a value and a cost figure both exist this site publishes the value and deliberately withholds the cost, because subtracting one from the other gives a development margin and a margin is a return figure. No such pair exists here. ON THE ETHNIC-ALLOCATION QUESTION, AND THE SHAPE OF THE ANSWER MATTERS: NONE OF THE THREE POSSIBLE SHAPES WAS FOUND. There is no filed field, because there is no filing in which a field could exist — so unlike several licensed projects on this site, there is no Bumiputera field here carrying a value that has been withheld. There is no unit quota on any surface read. And there is no lot-title classification either. Three distinct shapes were tested and all three came back empty, and saying that precisely is more useful than silence. WHAT IS PUBLISHED HERE, AND DELIBERATELY: the register record of the licensee and all seven of its registrations, because that is a public government record; the reported unit count, storey count, parcel acreage, built-up and land ranges, lot configurations, floor loading, heights and specifications, each labelled with the publisher that carried it and with the disagreements printed rather than averaged; and the four published distances, labelled as developer figures. Everything else — the real price of a real unit, and anything attaching to it — comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Ask Louis for both, in writing, and appoint your own solicitor before you sign anything.

Foreign buyers — an OPEN QUESTION on an industrial title, not an answer

This is the section where it would be easy to publish a confident number, and the honest position is that the number everybody quotes is a RESIDENTIAL instrument and nobody has established that it binds an industrial lot at all. So three things are stated together here, and none of them is stated without the others. ONE: the district is MOST PROBABLY Daerah Sepang, and that rests on a ranked inference rather than on a filing — no plan prefix, no approving authority named, no mukim, no lot number, and all seven of the licensee’s registrations printing the plan field as Tiada maklumat. TWO: IF the district is Daerah Sepang, Sepang sits in Selangor ZONE 1, and Zone 1’s verified foreign-acquisition floor is RM2,000,000 — for RESIDENTIAL property. For completeness: Zone 2, Kuala Selangor and Kuala Langat, is also RM2,000,000; Zone 3, Hulu Selangor, is RM1,000,000; Sabak Bernam is NOT VERIFIED and this page states no figure for it; and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur is RM1,000,000. And the RM1,500,000 window from the 2020 state circular HAS EXPIRED and is not current — it is named here precisely so that nobody quotes it. THREE, AND IT IS THE PART THAT MATTERS MOST: EVERY SOURCE BEHIND THAT TABLE IS A RESIDENTIAL ACQUISITION INSTRUMENT. A foreigner-eligibility tool, commentary on the state land office’s 2020 circular, the 2014 state circular, and the federal property-acquisition guidelines with section 433B of the National Land Code. Every one of them is about residential property. THEIR APPLICATION TO AN INDUSTRIAL TITLE IS NOT ESTABLISHED, AND THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL TITLE. Foreign acquisition of industrial land runs on a different consent track. RM2,000,000 IS NOT PUBLISHED HERE AS “THE RULE” FOR THIS PARK, because nobody has shown that it is. AND A SECOND, SHARPER POINT FOR THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY. If the tenure is LEASEHOLD — which is what the weight of evidence says — then a transfer will normally require STATE CONSENT, and on leasehold industrial land that consent commonly carries a premium. NOBODY PUBLISHES whether consent is required on this parcel, what any premium would be, or whether there is a restriction in interest endorsed on the title. Not one source mentions it. What closes it: the current PTG Selangor guideline on foreign acquisition of industrial land, plus a land-title search on the parcel. A foreign buyer should take state-level advice in writing before committing to anything here, and should treat any number quoted to them verbally as unverified until the land office confirms it.

The green claim, the awards, and one name on this site that means something else

THE GREEN RATING IS A GENUINE NEGATIVE RATHER THAN AN INCONCLUSIVE ONE, AND THE DIFFERENCE IS WORTH EXPLAINING. All four GreenRE tiers were read in one session. Bronze returned about 332 rows back to 4 April 2024, Silver about 141 back to 26 December 2023, Gold about 130 back to 11 March 2024 — each truncated at the oldest row — and Platinum about 95 rows back to 6 April 2015, NOT truncated. THERE IS NO ENTRY FOR THIS PROJECT ON ANY TIER. And the reason that is a real negative is the project’s own timeline: the launch is dated to April 2025 and completion to 2026 or 2027, so a design-stage provisional certification would have been issued after April 2024 on any plausible programme — INSIDE the readable range on three tiers, with the fourth readable in full to 2015. So this is not the usual “no entry in the reachable portion, therefore inconclusive”. There is no GreenRE registration for this park. AND IT MATTERS, BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS MARKETED ON GREEN FEATURES. The advertorial headline calls the units green and sustainable; both publishers list solar photovoltaic provision, rainwater harvesting and EV readiness. NO CERTIFICATION SCHEME IS NAMED BY ANY SOURCE. A feature list is not a rating, and this page will not write “certified” where no register carries an entry. One method note for anybody checking this themselves: on the green register the TOOL CODE is the discriminator, not the project name. A township tool code is the industrial-park code and the building tool codes are separate again, while a residential tool code means the row is not an industrial project at all. THE OTHER SCHEMES, CHECKED BEFORE THE ZERO WAS CALLED. The Green Building Index directory could not be read — it has returned errors throughout this series — so that one is INCONCLUSIVE and is never reported as a negative. The developer makes no claim on it either way. BCA Green Mark, LEED and the construction-quality assessment score were each searched explicitly, for this project and for the developer, and NO result exists for any of them. And there is no developer certificate library to check: the developer’s site has no awards, recognitions, sustainability or certification page at all. AWARDS: none is claimed for this park by anybody, and nothing has been borrowed from a sibling project to fill the space. One directory claim is worth labelling rather than repeating: a developer directory says the group “has completed six projects and is actively undertaking six more” while listing only three. The register shows seven registrations across two licences, six of them complete — so the “six completed” claim is consistent with the register while the directory’s own list is not. A track-record claim, not reconcilable to the register, and treated as a claim. AND ONE DISAMBIGUATION THAT HAS TO BE MADE EXPLICITLY, BECAUSE THE NAME IS ALREADY LIVE ON THIS SITE. Three published pages here carry the word “Binastra”, and on all three it means Binastra Builders Sdn Bhd — the MAIN CONTRACTOR to a different developer entirely. That is a different company, in a different role. The listed company of the same brand name, Binastra Corporation Berhad, is a CONTRACTOR: the stock-exchange route was tried on this project and it is SHUT. No announcement, no circular, no quarterly-report note and no subsidiary tree was located for this park, and the group’s investor-relations attachment host is not readable. NO REACHABLE SOURCE STATES A SHAREHOLDING RELATIONSHIP between BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD. and the listed company of the same brand name. The relationship is NOT ESTABLISHED, nothing on this page implies one, and the words “listed developer” do not belong anywhere near this project. What would close it: the listed company’s annual report subsidiaries note, or a company search on 200401015463 (0653966-W).

Why this page carries no imagery at all

NO VERIFIABLE IMAGE OF THIS PARK IS PUBLISHED WHOSE SUBJECT THIS PAGE COULD ESTABLISH TO THE STANDARD THIS SITE USES, AND WE WILL NOT PUBLISH ONE WHOSE SUBJECT WE CANNOT ESTABLISH. Fourteen distinct project-depicting assets were located across all hosts. Exactly ONE survived the subject test, and it was still not published, and the reason is unusual enough to be worth stating plainly. THE ONE SURVIVOR IS ON THE DEVELOPER’S OWN SITE and it is well identified: a front and side facade image whose published alternative text names the project AND the phase, whose own filename names the phase and the subject, and which is confirmed present on a reachable directory against a matched control. What it does NOT have is a measurable size — and the floor this site applies is a pixel floor. FOUR SEPARATE ROUTES TO A PIXEL DIMENSION WERE TRIED ON THAT HOST AND ALL FOUR ARE CLOSED. The site’s own media index returns an EMPTY ARRAY to an unfiltered query on a live, image-bearing site — not an error, not a block, not a missing page: a reachable and deliberately emptied index. There is no width or height in the page’s social-sharing metadata. There is no responsive-source attribute and no width or height attribute on the image tag itself. And the attachment page that would otherwise carry the dimensions is switched off. So the size requirement fails on OBTAINABILITY rather than on measurement — which is a weaker position than “measured and too small”, because a sub-standard asset cannot be ruled out in advance. On this site that means it does not ship. NINE PHOTOGRAPHS ON A PROPERTY PORTAL WERE REFUSED FROM THEIR URLS ALONE, WITHOUT A SINGLE DOWNLOAD. That portal’s image paths encode the long edge of the file, every gallery variant it offers for this project is the smaller size, and the largest on offer is below the floor. Their alternative texts are “Exterior” three times and “Image” six times, which is a populated caption rather than a descriptive one. THREE MORE WERE DECLINED ON A DIFFERENT GROUND AGAIN: they are developer advertorial creatives whose published captions are marketing slogans. A slogan is not a subject. One further advertorial image is probably a location map on the balance of its caption, and maps are refused by name — the more so because it is the asset the published distances would have been read off, and reading a distance off a developer map is not allowed here either. AND THE CATEGORIES REFUSED MOST FIRMLY, each by name: project logos, developer logos, the web agency’s own logo, a site-wide sharing image that stands in for a DIFFERENT Binastra project, theme furniture, icon sets, favicons, a corporate video, and — most important — every asset belonging to the three OTHER Binastra Business Parks. One of those is worth a sentence on its own: an image of the Alam Damai park in Cheras carries the IDENTICAL alternative text to the asset for this project, byte for byte. So that caption alone cannot identify a phase, which is exactly why the survivor’s identification had to rest on its social metadata and its filename as well. NO FILENAME WAS GUESSED ON THIS PROJECT AND NONE SHOULD BE. The developer’s upload directory is flat, reachable, and discriminates between a real file and an invented one — which is exactly the shape that tempts a guess. A guessed path that resolves proves a file exists and establishes NOTHING WHATEVER about what it shows. Every page on this site that has no acceptable imagery ships with none, and says so in both languages. The house position is settled: an uncaptioned or wrongly captioned image is worse than no image. Everything this page is for — the register position, the law, the contradictions printed rather than resolved, the gaps named with the document that would close each one — is text, and none of it needs a picture. When the developer supplies its own files with written confirmation of what each one shows, they go on this page and nothing else about it has to change.

The developer side

The licensee, the licence it did not use here, and the three decoys a search returns instead

BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., 200401015463 (0653966-W), is the entity named as the developer of this park — and it is named on the project’s OWN page, in the footer, with its registration number beside it. That is more than most unlicensed projects on this site manage, and it is worth saying plainly: it is the one buyer-protection point this developer scores outright, because a buyer can look the company up before signing anything. The register agrees on the name, character for character: BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., developer code 9795. The dual number is the ordinary Malaysian form — the current-format company registration number with the old-format number in brackets — and the 2004 prefix implies a 2004 incorporation.

THE LICENCE IS THE WHOLE POINT, SO HERE IT IS AGAIN IN ONE PLACE. Licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R), valid 11 June 2023 to 10 June 2028, status Aktif, no flagged offence, six registered projects. Those six are a terrace scheme in Kinrara, a townhouse and semi-detached scheme at Bukit Serdang, three serviced-apartment towers in Kuala Lumpur, and a 972-unit serviced-apartment scheme at Puchong in Daerah Petaling. ALL RESIDENTIAL. NOT ONE INDUSTRIAL. NOT ONE IN DAERAH SEPANG. A live licence, in the right locality, on the same licensee — and this business park on none of it, because a factory cannot be licensed.

A second licensee under the same brand exists and is a single-project vehicle. BINASTRA SYNERGY SDN. BHD., code 31332, licence 31332/03-2031/0079(A), one registration: 31332-1 Binastra Cochrane, 830 units, 50 storeys, Kuala Lumpur, Belum Mula at peratusSiap 0.00. ⚠ AND IT CARRIES pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya — an approved +24-month extension of the statutory delivery period, with a new vacant-possession date of 28 July 2031. That is the machinery a licensed buyer gets and a factory buyer does not.

THE CORPORATE FINGERPRINT, with one leg positive and one leg declining to answer. The business address No. 1 & 3, Jalan Jalil Jaya 3, Jalil Link, Bukit Jalil, 57000 Kuala Lumpur matches character for character across three independent surfaces: the project page’s own footer, a developer directory, and the second licensee’s register record. The phone number matches between the developer’s site and the directory. Both licensees share one registered office in the register — and BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD.’s own register row prints Tiada Maklumat Daerah in the district slot. Never read a locality off a licensee record: here the register itself declines to state one.

THE STOCK-EXCHANGE ROUTE WAS TRIED AND IT IS SHUT, AND THAT IS REPORTED AS AN OUTCOME RATHER THAN SKIPPED. A listed company of the same brand name exists — and it is the WRONG COMPANY: it is a CONTRACTOR, and its construction subsidiary appears on six other fact sheets in this series as the main contractor to OTHER developers. BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD. is a PRIVATE company. A directory says the group was founded in 1979 as a construction company and calls BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD. its property-development arm — but NO REACHABLE SOURCE STATES A SHAREHOLDING RELATIONSHIP between the two. Results coverage of the listed company refers only to “the Group” and names no subsidiary. Its investor-relations attachment host is not readable. So: no announcement, no circular, no quarterly-report note and no subsidiary tree was located for this park. THE RELATIONSHIP IS NOT ESTABLISHED, nothing on this page implies one, and the words “listed developer” are not used anywhere near it. What would close it: the listed company’s annual-report subsidiaries note, or a company search on the registration number above.

⚠ AND A DISAMBIGUATION THAT HAS TO BE MADE OUT LOUD, BECAUSE THE NAME IS ALREADY LIVE ON THIS SITE. Three published pages here carry the word “Binastra”, and on all three it means the CONTRACTOR to a different developer, not the licensee of this park. Different company, different role, relationship not established. Do not let one read across onto the other.

THE DEVELOPER’S OWN SITE IS ENUMERABLE AND THIN WHERE IT MATTERS, AND BOTH HALVES OF THAT ARE FINDINGS. Its project-collection index lists 28 projects, which is how the phase trap below was caught at all. But the project’s own page is a stub: the name, “Location: Pulau Meranti 2”, “Status: Current”, one sentence of green-feature copy, a conditional “from” figure, one facade image, a logo and the footer entity. It publishes NO tenure, NO land area, NO unit count, NO unit types, NO built-ups, NO floor loading, NO height, NO power, NO facilities list, NO completion date and NO statutory block of any kind. There is no terms page, no permit page and no statutory page — the footer links a disclaimer and a privacy policy and nothing else. EVERY substantive specification on this page therefore comes from somewhere OTHER than the developer’s own site. That is a finding about the developer and it belongs here.

⚠ AND THE PHASE TRAP, WHICH IS THE MOST DANGEROUS THING ABOUT THIS PROJECT’S NAME. There are at least FOUR Binastra Business Parks. This one is @ Pulau Meranti 2. There is a separate, EARLIER @ Pulau Meranti with NO numeral, listed separately on the developer’s own homepage as three-storey semi-detached factories, with its own tenure label and its own figures. There is @ Alam Damai in Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, marked completed — and note the slug trap: on the developer’s own site binastra-business-park-2 means ALAM DAMAI, not “Pulau Meranti 2”. And there is @ Subang Airport, marked upcoming. A SOURCE THAT SAYS ONLY “BINASTRA BUSINESS PARK” HAS NOT IDENTIFIED THIS PROJECT. Nothing from any of the other three is carried onto this page, and the earlier Pulau Meranti phase is named exactly once, as a separate development, because it is the probable source of the freehold tenure readings.

And one search axis that returns nothing but noise, recorded so nobody repeats it: searching the register on “Meranti” as a developer name returns four licensees — in Penang, Perak, Klang, Sentul and, on one of them, the registered-office fingerprint of an entirely different listed developer. NOT ONE of them is Binastra and NOT ONE is this park. The locality word is a pure substring harvest on that axis.

And the one surface the developer does not control that would have helped most is also absent: there is no readable public construction-industry record for this park, no consultant list and no financier. The public construction search endpoint returns an error even on its own known positives, and no identifier was guessed to get round it.

Developer-side facts read 21 October 2026 from the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects, searched against a positive control and walked registration by registration on both Binastra licences; from the developer’s own project page, homepage, sitemap and project-collection index; from a developer directory and two trade articles; and from a search of this site’s own published pages, which is how the contractor-versus-developer name collision was found. No corporate relationship is asserted anywhere on this page that a reachable source does not state.

Frequently asked

Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2 — the questions an industrial buyer should be asking

Is Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2 registered with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government?

No, and it cannot be. The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 reaches “housing accommodation”, and a three-storey factory is not housing accommodation. So there is no registered scheme, no project code, no advertising and sales permit and no filed statutory advertisement — and none of those absences is a failure by anybody. The register was searched on 21 October 2026 with a positive control run first, so the zero is a real zero.

Does the developer hold a KPKT developer licence?

Yes — and this is the sharpest finding on the page, so read it carefully. BINASTRA LAND SDN. BHD., developer code 9795, holds licence 9795/06-2028/0866(R), valid 11 June 2023 to 10 June 2028, status Aktif, with SIX registered projects on it. Every one of the six is residential or serviced apartment, and one of them is 9795-6 Suria Garden @ Puchong, 972 units in Daerah Petaling. So the licence is live, it is in the right locality, it is on the same company — and this business park is on none of it, because a factory cannot be licensed. The licence tells you about the developer. It tells you nothing about this park, and it must never be presented as this park’s permit validity.

What protections am I actually giving up by buying here?

All of these, and the list is the point of this page. No prescribed Schedule G or Schedule H sale contract. No statutory delivery period. No statutory liquidated damages if delivery runs late. No section 7A housing development account ring-fencing your progress payments. No statutory defect-liability period. No filed completion date. No KPKT register entry to check progress or a late flag against. And no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. What you get instead is the developer’s own sale and purchase agreement, which nobody publishes, and whatever your own solicitor negotiates in it. Appoint one before you sign.

Is the land freehold or leasehold?

Nobody can tell you, and this page will not pretend otherwise. Leasehold on three surfaces: a newsroom report, a trade advertorial, and a portal’s structured property-details field on two separate listings. Freehold on two: that same portal’s own description text on those same two listings, and a developer directory entry. So two publishers contradict themselves, one of them twice on one page, and the developer’s own project page says nothing at all. No lease term and no expiry date is published anywhere. The weight of evidence favours leasehold. The freehold readings may belong to the separate earlier phase of this park. Only a land-title search on the parcel closes it, and on an industrial asset that answer decides financing, assignability and exit.

Which district is it in, and why does the page hedge?

Most probably Daerah Sepang — and that is an inference, not a filed fact. The normal method is to read the district off the filed building-plan approval prefix, and that is impossible here twice over: there is no filing to carry a prefix, and all seven of the licensee’s registrations print the plan-approval field as Tiada maklumat, so even a sibling-registration leg is unavailable. Four ranked locality legs carry it instead: the project’s own Pulau Meranti name, the 47100 postcode, three earlier filings on this site that settled Daerah Sepang for other 47100-Puchong tamans, and — weakest, and named as such — a subsales portal taxonomy which files the taman under Sepang and mukim Dengkil but then wrongly rolls the town up to Cyberjaya. And the counter-evidence is printed: the licensee’s own Suria Garden @ Puchong is filed under Daerah PETALING, so Binastra does file Puchong projects under Petaling when they are in Petaling. A Majlis Perbandaran Sepang plan-approval record, or the title’s own mukim and lot number, would settle it in one line.

Can a foreigner buy a unit here?

That is an OPEN QUESTION on this title, not a number, and anyone who gives you a clean figure is going further than the evidence does. If the district is Daerah Sepang, Sepang is Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 1’s verified foreign-acquisition floor is RM2,000,000 — for RESIDENTIAL property. Every source behind that figure is a residential acquisition instrument, and their application to an INDUSTRIAL title is NOT ESTABLISHED. This is an industrial title. Foreign acquisition of industrial land runs on a different consent track, and RM2,000,000 is not published on this page as the rule for this park. And if the tenure is leasehold, which is what the weight of evidence says, a transfer will normally need state consent, which on leasehold industrial land commonly carries a premium — and nobody publishes whether consent is required here, what it would cost, or whether a restriction in interest sits on the title. The 2020 circular’s RM1,500,000 window has EXPIRED and must not be quoted. Take state-level advice in writing from the Selangor land office before committing.

What is the floor loading, and what else is published about the engineering?

10 kN/m² on the ground floor and 5 kN/m² on the upper warehouse level — and two independent publishers agree on both figures exactly, which makes it the best-corroborated hard number on the page. Also published: a 27-ft floor-to-floor height in the factory section with 15 ft and 12 ft in the general area, motorised roller shutters, a 1.5-tonne service lift hoist, a three-way opening door system, driveway access for 40-ft containers and solar photovoltaic provision per unit. NOT published by anybody: the power supply in amps or phase, the roller-shutter dimensions, dock levellers, turning radius, sprinkler and fire class, water and gas provision, units per floor, and the number of lorry and car bays per unit. The developer’s own page publishes no specification at all.

How big are the units?

Built-up 6,373 to 10,331 sq ft on land of 8,072 to 17,701 sq ft, on the two editorial surfaces — and a portal contradicts every figure of that. One publisher splits it as Type A and B at 6,373 to 9,938 sq ft on 8,072 to 14,672 sq ft, and Type C at 10,331 sq ft on 17,701 sq ft. A property portal’s project panel instead lists six figures — 10,917, 11,593, 12,270, 13,172, 14,095 and 15,654 sq ft — and says units run as large as 16,964 sq ft. Every one of those exceeds the editorial maximum. It may be carrying land areas inside a built-up field, or mixing in the separate earlier phase. Neither is confirmed, so both schedules are printed and neither is adopted. Ask for the developer’s own area schedule.

How many units are there, and what types?

21 units: 20 semi-detached factories and one bungalow factory, three storeys, in one block. Three surfaces say 21, including a portal’s structured field; one portal’s body text says “12 industrial units” and is unresolved against them. One publisher gives type letters A, B and C without stating what C is; another gives the 20-plus-1 split without letters. NO SOURCE MAPS A BUILT-UP TO A TYPE LETTER, so this page builds no per-type table — it would be the agent’s construction rather than a source’s.

When will it be completed?

Two published answers that disagree, and neither is contractual. 1Q2027 on the trade advertorial, which also dates the launch to April 2025, against Nov 2026 in a portal’s structured field. The newsroom report and the developer’s own page state no date at all. Because there is no statutory contract there is no contractual delivery date, so there is nothing for a completion date to be late against — and the register field that would flag lateness on a licensed project CANNOT BE CHECKED here. Printed as a disagreement, never as a date.

Is it really a green project?

It is marketed as green and sustainable, and no certification scheme is named by anybody. All four GreenRE tiers were read in one session and there is NO ENTRY for this project on any of them — and that is a genuine negative rather than an inconclusive one, because the project’s whole certifiable window falls inside the readable range on three tiers and the fourth is readable in full to 2015. Solar panels, rainwater harvesting and EV readiness are a feature list, not a rating. The Green Building Index directory could not be read, so that one is inconclusive and is never reported as a negative. BCA Green Mark, LEED and the construction-quality assessment score were all searched, with no result for any. And one commercially relevant detail in the feature list itself: one publisher says the CCTV, alarm and EV points ARE provided and the other says they are “ready for installation”, which is shell provision. Unresolved.

Why is there no price on this page?

Because no advertisement was ever filed, so there is no filed statutory selling-price range — and where none exists this site publishes no price at all and says that is the rule. Four separate surfaces do carry figures, and all four are withheld for reasons set out in full in the disclosure above the frequently-asked section: a conditional figure on the developer’s own site; the same project’s figure on a PAID advertorial, which the independence test collapses into the developer so that the conditional version governs; a directory range that belongs to the separate earlier phase and reconciles against no filed row; and seven agent asking prices with no filed floor to measure them against. No rent is transcribed either, because on an industrial asset a published rent is the direct input to a return figure. The real number comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer — ask Louis.

Why does this page have no photographs?

Because no published image of this park has a subject this page could establish to the standard this site uses. Fourteen distinct project-depicting assets were located. One survived the subject test — a facade image on the developer’s own site whose published alternative text names the project and the phase — and it still does not ship, because all four routes to its pixel dimensions are closed on that host, including a media index that returns an empty array to an unfiltered query on a live, image-bearing site. Nine portal photographs were refused from their URLs alone because that portal’s paths encode the long edge and the largest it offers is below the floor. Three advertorial creatives were declined because their captions are marketing slogans, and a slogan is not a subject. Nothing was borrowed from the three other Binastra Business Parks, and no filename was guessed. An uncaptioned or wrongly captioned image is worse than no image.

What is the one document that would answer most of this?

A land-title search on the parcel. In one instrument it would settle the tenure, the lease expiry if there is a lease, the category of land use and the express condition, any restriction in interest, the chargee, the mukim and the lot number — which is most of what this page has to leave open. Second best, and cheap: the Majlis Perbandaran Sepang plan-approval record, which would close the district, the approving authority and the plan reference in one line. Third: the developer’s own sales pack, which Louis can ask for, and which normally carries the type schedule, the per-type built-ups, the site plan with the lot and mukim, and the specification sheet.

Three documents, and one appointment, before anything else

A land-title search on the parcel — it settles the tenure, the lease expiry, the category of land use, any restriction in interest, the chargee, the mukim and the lot number in one instrument. The developer’s own sale and purchase agreement, in full, because on a product outside the Housing Development Act its delivery period, its late-delivery damages rate and its defect-liability period are the ONLY ones you get — and nobody publishes them. The specification sheet, with the power supply in amps and phase, the shutter dimensions and the bay count, none of which any publisher states. And your own solicitor, appointed before you sign anything, because there is no prescribed contract and no Tribunal behind you.

WhatsApp Louis about Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 2 Ask for a title search Call +60 10-906 6685

Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency. This page publishes no price, no rent and no return figure, and the reasons are set out in full in the disclosure above. Marketing information, not an offer.

Louis Koh

Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency

Over a decade in Malaysian property, across Johor Bahru and the Klang Valley. Louis writes these pages from the filed statutory particulars first and the marketing second, and where two sources disagree the page prints both. On a project outside the Housing Development Act that approach matters more, not less: there is no filing to fall back on, so every figure has to carry the name of whoever published it, and the gaps have to be named with the document that would close each one. Ask him for the title search, the sale and purchase agreement and the specification sheet before you ask him about anything else.

WhatsApp Louis now

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects, both Binastra developer licences walked registration by registration, all four GreenRE tiers, the developer’s own project page and sitemap, two trade publications and two agent listings. Marketing information, not an offer.

Binastra Business Park @ Pulau Meranti 221 factory units, 3 storeys, 7.1 acres · floor loading 10 / 5 kN/m² · OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act · no registration, no permit · tenure contradicted · no price published

WhatsApp Louis

Ask 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: Binastra Land (1 development on this site)

Where it is: Puchong, Selangor

All developers covered