Ambience Residence @ Sungai Besi — Kuala Lumpur
Filed with the Government as RESIDENSI AMBIEN KUALA LUMPUR. 482 units in one registered phase, all on Schedule H — 146 two-bedroom, 240 three-bedroom, 96 four-bedroom. Freehold. Licensed developer FAITHVIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD (1302278-D), licence 30366/02-2028/0043, approving authority Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. Two things on this page appear nowhere else: the approved 12-month extension of the delivery period, and the fact that no unit on the filed schedule reaches the Kuala Lumpur foreign-buyer floor.
I reply with the filed KPKT advertisement documents and the government register record, not a brochure summary.
Ambience Residence @ Sungai Besi at a glance
Eighteen facts, each with the document that prints it. Where the two filed documents disagree with each other, or with the government register, both figures are shown. Where nothing was printed — the land area, the mukim, the storey count in the statutory block — the row says so instead of filling the gap.
- Registered scheme name
- RESIDENSI AMBIEN KUALA LUMPURNama Pemajuan Perumahan: Residensi Ambien Kuala Lumpur, verbatim in both filed KPKT documents; RESIDENSI AMBIEN in the register’s nama field. “Ambience Residence” appears in no filing as the scheme name — your SPA, your strata title and every KPKT record will read Residensi Ambien.
- Licensed developer
- FAITHVIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD (1302278-D)Pemaju in both filings. KPKT developer code 30366; register track record for this licensee: 1 project, 0 sick, 0 abandoned, status Lancar. Not “Faithview Group”, which is not a registered licensee, and not Faithview Management Sdn Bhd (1351112-A), which is the company in the developer’s own website footer and holds no KPKT licence.
- Developer’s licence
- 30366/02-2028/0043Valid 13 Feb 2023 – 12 Feb 2028, current as at 8 October 2026. The brochure prints the serial with the (N) suffix; the register’s live record carries (A). Same serial, same validity.
- APDL (advertising & sales permit)
- 30366-1/07-2027/0550(R)-(S)Both filed documents print this as a literal
XXXXplaceholder, withXXXXvalidity. The real permit comes from the KPKT register: valid 18 Jul 2026 – 17 Jul 2027, current, with two earlier permits both ended 17 Jul 2026 — so the (R) is a renewal, the third in the chain. PropertySifu publishes the same number independently. - Tenure
- FreeholdPegangan Tanah: BEBAS; Tarikh Tamat Tempoh Pajakan: TIADA — both filings. Sekatan Kepentingan: TIADA. Bebanan Tanah: Gadaian (CIMB Bank Berhad) — a conventional bank charge.
- Total units
- 482Bilangan Unit: 482 unit in both filings; jumlah_unit 482 in the register. The filed schedule sums exactly: 146 + 240 + 96 = 482.
- Built form, as filed
- Pangsapuri / register: Pangsapuri ServisPerihal (Spesifikasi) Rumah: PANGSAPURI in both filings; building type Pangsapuri Servis (serviced apartment) in the register. EdgeProp types it “Condominium/Apartment”, PropertyGuru calls it both a condominium and a service residence on two different records, and IQI’s own page labels it Category: Commercial.
- Sale contract
- Schedule H on all 482 unitspjb.jenis: Jadual H in the register, on the single registered phase. That means a strata title, the HDA housing-development account, statutory LAD and a DLP — for every unit.
- Governing handover date
- 16 October 2027 — a 12-month extension is already approvedThe register records pindaanTempohSerahKosong Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan 12 Bulan, tempohAsal 36 → tempohPembinaanBaharu 48 Bulan, and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama 16 Oct 2027. First SPA 16 Oct 2023; original vacant possession 16 Oct 2026. No brochure, microsite, portal or agent page mentions the extension.
- Filed expected completion
- September 2026 — past, and supersededTarikh Jangka Siap: September 2026 in both filed documents. That date had already passed when this page was written, and the register has superseded it. Shown because it is what the legally filed advertisement still says.
- Storeys
- 25 filed · 31 marketedBilangan Tingkat is NOT PRINTED in either filing. The register files
tingkat: 25. Every marketing source says 31. 482 ÷ 25 = 19.3 per floor, inside the marketed “11–20 per floor”; 482 ÷ 31 = 15.5, below it. That arithmetic is mine. - Blocks
- NOT PRINTEDNo Bilangan Blok field in either filing. BLOK A appears only as a floor-plan label; every secondary source describes one tower.
- Land area
- NOT PRINTED in either filingOnly portal and agency figures exist: 71,438 sq ft / 1.6401 acres (IQI), “1.64 acres” (microsite, PropertyGuru), “1.6 acres” (PropertySifu). This is why the developer’s own filed “DENSITI RENDAH” banner cannot be tested against a filed denominator at all.
- Approving authority
- Dewan Bandaraya Kuala LumpurPihak Berkuasa Tempatan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, verbatim in both filings, with No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan DBKL.JKB: BP S3 OSC 2023 0222 — a DBKL One-Stop-Centre reference, 2023 series. DBKL’s jurisdiction is the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only. This settles the location from a government filing rather than from marketing.
- Mukim, lot, PT number, land title
- NOT PRINTEDAbsent from both filings, from the register and from every portal. The developer is privately held and not Bursa-listed, so no contractor announcement exists to recover them from. Syarat Nyata — the express land-use condition — is also NOT PRINTED, which is why the marketed “commercial title” claim cannot be confirmed or denied.
- Filed statutory price band
- RM448,230 – RM747,600 (filed documents) · RM448,230 – RM866,400 (register)Harga MIN/MAK in the filed brochure and newspaper advertisement, against hargaMin/hargaMax in the register. The minima agree exactly; the maxima differ by RM118,800. Two government records, one registered phase. Per-type statutory prices are NOT PRINTED anywhere. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
- Foreign buyers
- Closed — no unit reaches the RM1,000,000 Federal Territory floorKuala Lumpur / Wilayah Persekutuan requires a RM1,000,000 minimum purchase price with EPU consent. The filed ceiling is RM747,600 (documents) or RM866,400 (register). On either figure not one of the 482 units qualifies. No marketing source on this project says so.
- Construction progress
- 72.27% · no CCC · no vacant possessionRegister peratus 72.27, reported beside komponen: Lancar; ccc
-; vp-. This is construction progress, not a sales figure. Separately, PropertySifu reports 467 of 482 units sold as at 28 Aug 2026 — a portal’s reading of a KPKT figure, dated.
Jump to what you came for
This page is ordered the way a buyer actually asks — starting with the two facts that change a decision and that no marketing source on this project publishes: the handover date moved, and the whole development is closed to foreign buyers.
Twelve things about this project that do not add up — and the source for each
None of this is rumour. Every item comes from the two filed KPKT statutory documents for 30366-1, the KPKT public register, the developer’s own website, or a named portal. Where the developer’s own two filings disagree with each other, both are shown. On this project the register is doing most of the work, because the current brochure carries no statutory block at all.
A 12-month handover extension is already approved — and the government register is the only place that says so
The register record for 30366-1, field by field: pindaanTempohSerahKosong Ya; tempohAsal 36 Bulan becoming tempohPembinaanBaharu 48 Bulan; tempohTambahanDiluluskan 12 Bulan; first SPA 16 October 2023; original vacant possession 16 October 2026; and revised vacant possession 16 October 2027. Both filed KPKT documents still print Tarikh Jangka Siap: September 2026 — a date already past. Seven different completion dates are in circulation, including 31 August 2027 on IQI’s own project page, a precise day no filing supports, and 2028 from PropertySifu, which correctly spots the 36+12 structure and then lands on the wrong year. The register’s Lancar status is measured against the revised period. An approved extension of a Schedule H delivery period is the mechanism that alters LAD exposure for the extended year; the approval instrument itself is not published, so take legal advice rather than reading an outcome off this page.
On the filed prices, not one unit is open to a foreign buyer — and nobody says so
This is Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, settled by the filed Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur and the filed DBKL building-plan reference. The Federal Territory floor is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent — not Selangor’s RM2,000,000. The filed statutory maximum is RM747,600 in the KPKT documents and RM866,400 in the register. On either figure the highest-priced unit in the development falls short of the threshold, so all 482 units are closed to foreign purchase. Every marketing source on this project is silent on it. If you are buying from overseas, that is the whole answer.
Two KPKT filings disagree on every built-up, and the newer one is about 20 sq ft smaller
The 2023-era filing publishes 668.6 / 866.0 / 1,080.0 sq ft as Jumlah Keluasan for types A, B and C, in both square metres and square feet, with an internal/external split. The June 2026 re-filing publishes 649 / 846 / 1,060 sq ft for the same three types — a flat reduction of roughly 20 sq ft on all three, which is the signature of a schedule change rather than a typo. Same licensee, same single registered phase, both KPKT-filed. And every consumer source — the developer’s own page, both microsites, EdgeProp, PropertyGuru twice, PropertySifu, IQI — carries only the older figures. The newer filed figures appear on no consumer source at all. Confirm the built-up in your own SPA schedule; that is the one that binds.
The current filed brochure has no statutory block whatsoever
Two generations of filing exist and they are not the same document. The 2023-era filing carries the full Butir-Butir Iklan block. The June 2026 P45 re-filing, which is the current one, was read twice at two offsets: across its whole 6,203 characters there is no Pemaju, no licence number, no permit number, no Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan, no Tarikh Jangka Siap, no Harga, no Jumlah Unit, no Pegangan Tanah and no Bebanan. It is a pure sales brochure. So a buyer reading only the current brochure sees no filed completion date, no licence and no permit — and the only document that does carry them is the 2023-era one, whose completion date has lapsed.
The APDL is a literal XXXX placeholder in both filed documents
The brochure and the newspaper advertisement both print XXXX where the advertising-and-sales permit number belongs, and XXXX where its validity belongs. On those documents alone, lapse-versus-current cannot be assessed at all — and the licence validity must never be passed off as the permit’s. The KPKT register prints the real one: 30366-1/07-2027/0550(R)-(S), valid 18 Jul 2026 – 17 Jul 2027, current, and shows two earlier permits that both ended 17 Jul 2026, making the live (R) the third in a renewal chain. PropertySifu publishes the same permit and the same licence serial independently. The licence suffix differs too: the brochure prints (N), the register’s live record is (A). This page publishes the register’s versions.
The registered name is not the marketed name
Filed: Residensi Ambien Kuala Lumpur (Nama Pemajuan Perumahan, both documents) and RESIDENSI AMBIEN in the register. Marketed everywhere as “Ambience Residence”, which appears in no filing as the scheme name. The portals add “Ambience Residences” and “Residensi Ambien” as further variants, and a Chinese name — 怡宁苑 — appears on exactly one source, the Google Sites microsite, and in no filing. Search in the registered Malay name when you want the government record.
The licensee is not the company named in the developer’s own website footer
Your SPA counterparty is FAITHVIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD (1302278-D), developer code 30366. Every marketing source says “Faithview Group”, which is not a registered licensee. And the developer’s own site footer names FAITHVIEW MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (1351112-A) — an entity that holds no KPKT developer licence at all and does not appear in the developer register. So the website carrying this project is published by a company that is not the licensee. Five licensed Faithview SPVs exist, all sharing one Melaka Raya registered office, and one of them, Faithview Group Development Sdn Bhd, holds a scheme — Twinview Residence — whose permit has been cancelled (Permit Telah Dibatalkan). This licensee has exactly one project: this one. And this is Faithview’s first Kuala Lumpur project — every other registered scheme under all five licensees is in Melaka Tengah.
“Ambience Residence” is a Faithview brand on at least five sites, three of them in Melaka
Three live KPKT schemes carry the brand. This one: Residensi Ambien, code 30366, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, 482 units, registry band RM448,230–RM866,400, Lancar. Melaka 1: Pangsapuri Gadong Harmoni @ Ambience Residence, licensee Faithview Ambience Sdn Bhd, code 20161, 723 units, band RM216,720–RM377,720, Siap Dengan CCC 31/10/2025. Melaka 2: Ambience Residence, licensee Faithview Holding Sdn Bhd, code 31375, 620 units, band RM435,000–RM758,000, Belum Mula. Plus “Ambience Residence Kota Syahbandar”, “Ambience Ayer Keroh” and “Ambience Klebang” as marketing names, all Melaka. PropertyGuru record 21433, “Ambience Residence (Residensi Nikel)”, is the Melaka one, and PropertyGuru runs “Below RM300K at Ambience Residence” filter pages off it. The CCC dated 31 October 2025 belongs to Melaka — the Kuala Lumpur register record prints ccc and vp as -. Never let a sub-RM300,000 headline or a 2025 completion certificate near this project.
Storeys: the register files 25; all marketing says 31
Neither filed document prints Bilangan Tingkat at all, so the register’s tingkat: 25 is the only filed figure anywhere. The arithmetic favours it: 482 ÷ 25 = 19.3 units per floor, which lands exactly inside the marketed “about 11 to 20 units per floor” and matches the forum thread’s “20 per floor”; 482 ÷ 31 = 15.5, below the marketed range. The filed June 2026 brochure also puts the main deck on Tingkat 6 and co-working on Tingkat 7, so residential levels begin around level 8 — on 31 storeys that leaves about 24 residential floors, again near 25. Both divisions and that inference are my arithmetic. Both numbers are published on this page, each labelled.
“DENSITI RENDAH” is in the developer’s own filed brochure banner — and the denominator is in no filing
The filed June 2026 brochure banner reads HAK MILIK KEKAL · DENSITI RENDAH · UNIT TERHAD, and the developer’s own project page says “features a residence with low density, with only 482 units”. But Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in either filing, so density cannot be computed from a filed denominator at all — the claim is published without the number it depends on. On the only land areas any source gives: 482 ÷ 1.6401 acres (IQI’s 71,438 sq ft) ≈ 294 units per acre; on PropertySifu’s 1.6 acres ≈ 301; even on a forum poster’s loose “about 2 acres” ≈ 241. All three are my arithmetic on a portal or agency land area. Every available denominator produces a high-rise density, not a low one, and this page prints no density figure as a published fact.
EdgeProp publishes the internal area as the built-up, and both big portals hold duplicate records
EdgeProp 51044 prints “Type A … 568 sqft”. That is the filing’s Keluasan Dalaman — 52.8 sq m / 568.2 sq ft of internal area — not the built-up, which is 668.6 sq ft (568.2 internal + 100.4 external). EdgeProp’s own description gives the correct 62.1–100.3 sq m range in the same page, contradicting its own table. EdgeProp holds two records for one project (46747 “@ Kuchai Lama”, 51044 “Residensi Ambien / Salak Selatan”) and PropertyGuru holds two as well (20977, Jalan 38, 57100, completion 2027, “condominium”; and 23046, Salak South, postcode 50000, completion September 2026, “Service Residence”, filed under the breadcrumb “KL City Centre”). 50000 is central KL, about 6 km away, and this project is not in the city centre. PropertyGuru’s building-details tables are empty placeholders too: 23046 shows “0 floors and 0 units” while its own text says 482 units in 31 storeys.
IQI’s own page — my own agency’s — is one of the wrong ones
Said plainly, because a page like this has no value if it spares its own side. iqiglobal.com’s project page for Ambience Residence carries an “explore other options in and around Mantin, Negeri Sembilan” block, complete with its own schools and points of interest, attached to a Kuala Lumpur project — template contamination, and it needs fixing. The same page labels the project Category: Commercial while describing it as residential, and asserts a completion date of 31 August 2027 that no filing supports — the register’s revised date is 16 October 2027. Its land area of 71,438 sq ft is useful and is the only one with a figure attached, and it is attributed to IQI throughout this page rather than treated as filed. Two other marketed claims fail the same test: “Duplex Available!” on the Google Sites microsite is unsupported — no duplex type exists in either filed schedule and there is only one registered phase (30366-2 returns 404 on both HIMS and the register); and “Commercial Title under HDA” is only half supported, because Syarat Nyata is NOT PRINTED anywhere.
What is actually being built, and the dated record behind it
The statistics band carries only figures a filing, the government register or a named source published — and labels my own arithmetic as mine. The facilities columns separate the filed list from what only a portal carries, and they reproduce the filing’s own oddities rather than tidying them away. The timeline marks the governing handover date and the superseded one.
Facilities — the filed list, reproduced with its own oddities intact
The only source that assigns levels is the filed June 2026 brochure, under the heading Kemudahan Eksklusif_Tingkat 6, which prints a numbered list of 24 items plus three exceptions. The developer’s own project page publishes no facilities list at all, and no source publishes a full level-by-level schedule. The list is reproduced here as filed — including the duplicate and the two toilets — because the oddities are the information.
Filed — level 6, the main deck
- 01 Gimnasium (gymnasium)
- 02 Kolam renang (swimming pool)
- 03 Jacuzzi
- 04 Dek kolam & kerusi (pool deck and chairs)
- 05 Trek joging (jogging track)
- 06 Dapur gourmet (gourmet kitchen)
- 07 Tandas (toilet)
- 08 Tandas OKU (accessible WC)
- 09 Sauna
- 10 Dewan serbaguna (multipurpose hall)
- 11 Kolam rendam (soaking pool)
- 12 Taman permainan (playground)
- 13 Gym luar (outdoor gym)
- 14 Bilik permainan (games room)
- 15 Surau (prayer room)
- 16 Bilik permainan — the filing lists the games room a second time, at item 16 as well as item 14
- 17 Pejabat pengurusan (management office)
- 18 Bilik mesyuarat (meeting room)
- 19 Dek yoga (yoga deck)
- 22 Sistem keselamatan 24 jam (24-hour security) — no level printed
Filed — and NOT on level 6
- 20 Taska (day-care) — filed Tingkat Bawah, BILIK SAHAJA: ground level, room only. Those are the developer’s own words and they mark it as shell space with no fit-out commitment. Two portals list a finished “Nursery” instead
- 21 Lounge — filed Tingkat Bawah, ground level
- 24 Ruang bekerja bersama (co-working) — filed Tingkat 7, the only item outside level 6 and the ground floor with a printed level
- 23 Dek pemerhatian bumbung (rooftop viewing deck) — no level is printed for it in the filing and no source assigns one. It is implicitly at roof level, and “implicitly” is as far as the evidence goes
Carried only by a portal or a microsite — in no filing
- Badminton courts — PropertyGuru record 20977 only. Absent from the filed 24-item list.
- Steam bath — EdgeProp record 51044 only. The filing has a sauna, which is not a steam room.
- Clubhouse — EdgeProp 51044 description only. No clubhouse appears in the filed list.
- “Park and Garden” — EdgeProp 51044 only.
- “Wading pool” — both microsites, PropertyGuru and IQI. The filing’s nearest item is kolam rendam, a soaking pool; “wading pool” is a marketing rendering of it.
- “Car park” as an amenity — EdgeProp 51044. The filing instead allocates bays per unit type, which is the more useful disclosure and is set out in the layouts section above.
- 5 lifts — 4 passenger plus 1 service — both microsites, IQI and the Lowyat thread. In no filing. Carried here because a lift count matters on a 482-unit tower, and attributed because it is not filed.
Not published, therefore not on this page
- Which facility sits on which level, beyond the three levels the filing itself prints: 6 (the main deck, per the heading Kemudahan Eksklusif_Tingkat 6), 7 (co-working) and ground (day-care room and lounge). Everything else is unassigned, and this page assigns nothing.
- A defensible facility count. The filed list runs to 24 numbered items, but it repeats the games room and counts two toilets among them, so a “24 facilities” headline overstates the distinct amenity count. No count is published on this page.
- The total facility deck area, and whether the rooftop deck is accessible to all residents.
- Whether the day-care room will be fitted out, operated, or let to an operator — the filing commits only to the room.
- Total car-park bays, visitor bays, motorcycle bays and EV charging. Per-type allocation is filed; totals are not.
- Share units, and the basis on which the maintenance charge is allocated.
- The sinking fund rate — expressly excluded from the only maintenance figure any source publishes.
- Ceiling and floor-to-floor heights, the finishes and furnishing schedule, and which levels carry which unit types.
- Any green rating, target or registration — see the developer section: there is none, and none is claimed.
Dated record — the two filings and the KPKT register
30366-1, both carrying the full statutory Butir-Butir Iklan block, both printing Tarikh Jangka Siap: September 2026, and both printing the APDL as a literal XXXX.XXXX. PropertySifu publishes it independently.P45 re-filing at files/30366/P45/P45-20260611-00019603/. It publishes smaller built-ups (649 / 846 / 1,060 sq ft) and the 24-item facilities list, and it carries no statutory particulars block of any kind. Its companion files return 404.-).30366-1, the KPKT register record 30366-1, the Faithview developer register, the GreenRE Silver, Gold and Bronze registers, and the named sources listed in the register section. Construction progress stands at 72.27%.The filed schedule, type by type — and the two filings that disagree on every built-up
Three types, and the filed schedule sums to the filed total exactly: 146 + 240 + 96 = 482. That is the strongest internal check available on this project, and it is also what rules out a hidden non-HDA component. Every area, bathroom count and car-park allocation below is read from a statutory or plan schedule in one of the two filed documents, never from narrative prose — and where the two filings differ, both figures are on the card. Per-type statutory prices are not printed anywhere, by either filing, so no card carries a price of its own.
Jenis A / A1 — 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 146 units
The smallest and the second most numerous type. The 2023-era filing publishes it in both units with the split shown: Keluasan Dalaman 52.8 sq m / 568.2 sq ft internal, Keluasan Luaran 9.3 sq m / 100.4 sq ft external, Jumlah Keluasan 62.1 sq m / 668.6 sq ft — the developer’s own figures in both units, not my conversion. The June 2026 re-filing prints 649 sq ft for the same type, about 19.6 sq ft smaller. Car-park allocation: 1 bay, filed as 11.5 sq m / 124.0 sq ft — and no portal, no microsite and not the developer’s own page publishes the car-park allocation at all, which makes this one of the more useful filed facts on the page. Beware EdgeProp’s “Type A … 568 sqft”: that is the internal area published as the unit size, contradicted by EdgeProp’s own description in the same page. A single bay on a 2-bedroom unit is worth planning around.
Ask for the filed Jenis A scheduleJenis B / B1 — 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 240 units
Half the development. 240 of 482 units are this type, so it is the one most buyers will actually be shown. The 2023-era filing publishes 70.4 sq m / 757.9 sq ft internal plus 10.0 sq m / 108.1 sq ft external, Jumlah Keluasan 80.4 sq m / 866.0 sq ft. The June 2026 re-filing prints 846 sq ft — 20 sq ft smaller. Car-park allocation: 2 bays, filed as 23.0 sq m / 248.0 sq ft. Note the ratio that the filed schedule actually describes: three bedrooms to two bathrooms, which is what the filing says and what every portal repeats. Room labels printed on the filed plans across all three types are Balkoni, Halaman (yard), Dapur, Ruang Tamu and Ruang Makan, and no level number is printed on any floor plan, so no type can be tied to a floor.
Ask for the filed Jenis B scheduleJenis C / C1 — 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 96 units
The largest type, and the only one where the two filings also disagree on parking. The 2023-era filing publishes 88.5 sq m / 953.0 sq ft internal plus 11.8 sq m / 127.0 sq ft external, Jumlah Keluasan 100.3 sq m / 1,080.0 sq ft, with 2 bays (23.0 sq m / 248.0 sq ft). The June 2026 re-filing prints 1,060 sq ft and allows 2–3 bays. A four-bedroom unit at 1,080 sq ft is compact for the bedroom count, and that is the honest way to read it: the filed schedule puts four bedrooms and three bathrooms inside 100.3 sq m. The variant labels A1, B1 and C1 appear in both filings as plan labels with no separate area and no separate unit count, so this page does not treat them as distinct types. On the top end of the price band: the filed maximum of RM747,600, or the register’s RM866,400, is development-wide and is not attributed to this or any other type by either filing.
Ask for the filed Jenis C scheduleThe two filings side by side — about 20 sq ft smaller, on all three types
Jenis A: 668.6 → 649 sq ft, down 19.6. Jenis B: 866.0 → 846, down 20. Jenis C: 1,080.0 → 1,060, down 20. A flat reduction of about twenty square feet across all three types is the signature of a schedule change — a re-measured balcony, or an element excluded from the total — rather than a transcription error. Both documents are KPKT filings, by the same licensee, for the same single registered phase 30366-1. Every secondary source still carries only the older figures: the developer’s own portfolio page, both microsites, EdgeProp’s description, PropertyGuru twice, PropertySifu and IQI. The newer filed figures appear on no consumer source at all. This page publishes 669 / 866 / 1,080 as the marketed schedule and 649 / 846 / 1,060 as the June 2026 filed schedule, and tells you to confirm the number written into your own SPA schedule, because that is the figure that binds. Note also that the June 2026 filing does not print Jumlah Unit per type at all — the 146 / 240 / 96 split comes from the 2023-era filing alone.
What a filed schedule would tell you, and does not here
Per-type statutory selling prices are not printed by either filing — only the single development-wide minimum and maximum. No level number appears on any filed floor plan, so no type can be tied to a floor, an orientation or a view. Also not published by anyone: total car-park bays, visitor bays, motorcycle bays and EV charging (per-type allocation is filed; totals are not); share units per type and the basis of the maintenance charge; the finishes and furnishing schedule beyond the electrical, sanitary and finishes lists in the June 2026 brochure; ceiling and floor-to-floor heights; and which levels carry which unit types. Two marketed claims fail against the filings outright and are recorded here so they are not repeated: “Duplex Available!” — no duplex type exists in either filed schedule, both of which contain only A, B and C with single-storey bedroom and bathroom counts, and the project has only one registered phase, 30366-2 returning 404 on both HIMS and the register, so there is no “last phase”; and a dual-key layout, which no source claims and which the filed room lists would not support.
Provenance note, so there is no doubt where these numbers come from. The areas, bedroom and bathroom counts, unit counts and car-park allocations are read directly from the statutory and plan schedules of the two filed KPKT documents for 30366-1 — the 2023-era IKLAN_BROSUR_01 / IKLAN_AKHBAR_01 and the June 2026 P45 re-filing — and never from either document’s narrative prose. The 2023-era filing publishes both square metres and square feet with an internal/external split, so none of 568.2, 100.4, 668.6, 757.9, 108.1, 866.0, 953.0, 127.0 or 1,080.0 sq ft is my conversion. The June 2026 filing publishes square feet only; the metric equivalents of 649, 846 and 1,060 sq ft are not published by the developer and are not printed here. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
The developer’s own six images — and why none of them has a subject
faithview ambience kl gallery image N in its own content management system. So the project attribution is confirmed and the subject is unconfirmed, and this page will not invent one. Shown first because it is the developer’s own first frame, not because anyone has said what it depicts.
Grading note, said plainly, because this is the one section where this page has less to offer than a portal would pretend to. The developer publishes its Ambience Residence KL gallery without a single caption. Every file is titled only faithview ambience kl gallery image N in the developer’s own content management system, the alt_text field is empty on all twelve files in the series, and the project page prints them in a gallery with no captions. So the honest grade is project attribution confirmed, subject unconfirmed: the CMS file title and the upload path both say “ambience kl”, and nothing anywhere says what any individual frame shows. This page therefore names no pool deck, no lobby and no show unit, and it does not guess which frames are artist’s impressions. That is a finding about the developer’s own disclosure, not a gap to paper over. Two further findings worth recording. A second, separate “Ambience” image set exists in the same media library and is not this project: eleven files titled Ambience-11 through Ambience-813 with no project word and no location token at all, plus Ambience-Residence-Klebang, Ambience-Residence-Ayer-Keroh, two “upcoming project” files and a ten-image faithivew ambience pulau gadong set — Klebang, Ayer Keroh and Pulau Gadong are all Melaka, and none of it is used here. And the developer does publish three dated construction-progress files, which would be genuinely useful on a project at 72.27% — but all three are 428 × 259 pixels or smaller, too small to publish. No floor plan, no site plan and no filed brochure page is published as an image by anyone.
Salak South Baru / Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur — and the distances nobody publishes
The pin below is the registered coordinate from the KPKT project record, not a guess. The jurisdiction is settled from a government filing rather than from marketing: Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur and a DBKL One-Stop-Centre building-plan reference, both printed verbatim in both filed documents. This is Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan — which is what sets the RM1,000,000 foreign-buyer floor, and therefore the answer in the statutory register section below.
On the street address and the postcode. Two independent sources print the address identically — 924, Jalan 38, Salak South Baru, 57100 Kuala Lumpur, from EdgeProp condo record 46747 and from IQI’s own project page — and 57100 is Sungai Besi / Salak Selatan, Kuala Lumpur. The filings print no site address at all. Do not use the other postcode in circulation: PropertyGuru record 23046 prints 50000 and files the project under the breadcrumb “KL City Centre”. 50000 is central Kuala Lumpur, roughly 6 km away, and this project is not in the city centre; PropertyGuru’s other record for the same project, 20977, prints the correct 57100. Four locality labels are also in circulation — EdgeProp titles one record “@ Kuchai Lama” and files the other under “Salak Selatan”, IQI and the developer say “Sungai Besi”, and the filed street is Salak South Baru. All four are adjacent Kuala Lumpur localities; the filings name none of them, only DBKL.
What the filings actually print about where this is
- Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur — printed verbatim in both filed KPKT documents. DBKL’s planning jurisdiction is the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only
- No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan: DBKL.JKB: BP S3 OSC 2023 0222 — a DBKL One-Stop-Centre building-plan reference, 2023 series, printed verbatim in both filings. This is the single strongest piece of location evidence on the project, and it is a government filing
- Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri WP Kuala Lumpur — KPKT register record
30366-1 - Registered coordinate 3.083676, 101.698206 — the register’s own figure. South-central Kuala Lumpur, consistent with Salak Selatan / Salak South Baru
- The filings print NO site address and NO locality at all. The only address in either document is the developer’s own head office: Menara Faithview, No 21, Jalan KL 3/15, Taman Kota Laksamana, Seksyen 3, 75200 Melaka — a different state from the site
- Mukim, seksyen, lot and PT number: NOT PRINTED by either filing, by the register or by any portal, with no Bursa route to recover them because the developer is privately held
- Syarat Nyata (express land-use condition): NOT PRINTED — which is why the marketed “commercial title” claim can be neither confirmed nor denied here
- Keluasan Tanah: NOT PRINTED — the land area is in no filing, which is why no density figure appears on this page as a published fact
Every distance any source publishes — all six of them, each attributed
- MRT Taman Naga Emas (PY28, Putrajaya Line) — 800 m per the project-branded microsite, the Google Sites microsite and IQI’s own page, given with no label at all; and 651 m per PropertySifu, which expressly labels it straight-line. Both are printed here; they are not collapsed into one number. The station opened 16 March 2023
- SK Salak South (primary school) — 278 m, PropertySifu, labelled straight-line (the label’s placement is ambiguous in the source, and that is said rather than smoothed over)
- Plaza Salak Park (mall) — 464 m, PropertySifu, with no label given
- Giant Desa Petaling — “about a 5-minute drive”: the project-branded microsite, the Google Sites microsite and IQI. That is a time, not a distance, and the mode is stated as driving
- NSK Trade City, Kuchai Lama — “within 6 minutes”: the project-branded microsite and IQI. A time, not a distance, and the mode is not stated
- Bandar Tasik Selatan station — 1.5 km west of Taman Naga Emas station (Wikipedia). That is station-to-station and NOT a distance from this project, and it is labelled as such rather than quietly reused
Distances no source publishes — therefore not on this page
- A pedestrian route or a link bridge to the MRT. One anonymous forum post describes “about a 700 m walk… via a link bridge”. No published source confirms a link bridge and the filings show none. This page does not promise one. The same thread mentions a cemetery along the walk; unverified by any published source, and recorded only because a buyer walking the route would see it
- Every place in the filed Lokasi list, which is long and carries not one distance from any source: Terminal Bersepadu Selatan, NSK Trade City Kuchai Lama, My TOWN, Berjaya Times Square Theme Park, Menara Kuala Lumpur, Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, Sunway Velocity Mall, SOGO, Decathlon Old Klang Road, Mid Valley City, Bandar Baru Sri Petaling, Pavilion Bukit Jalil, The Mines, EkoCheras Mall, Leisure Mall, Sunway Pyramid, Taman Desa, Taman Rimba, Bukit Kerinchi, Bangsar, Petaling Jaya, Cheras, National Stadium and Axiata Arena Bukit Jalil
- The expressways, named with no figure: Sungai Besi Expressway, Jalan Sungai Besi, Jalan Istana, Jalan Loke Yew, Jalan Syed Putra, Federal Highway, Salak Express, Maju Expressway (MEX), New Pantai Expressway and the Kuala Lumpur–Seremban Expressway
- The schools and universities, named with no figure: Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, SMK Desa Petaling, SJK(C) Salak South, SMK La Salle, Wembley International School, Sri Desa International School, Campus Ranger International School, Kuen Cheng High School, Tsun Jin High School, Tzu Chi International School Kuala Lumpur, Asia Pacific University of Technology, Taylor’s College, University Malaya and the International Medical University
- The medical facilities, named with no figure: KMI Taman Desa Medical Centre, UKM Medical Centre, Pantai Hospital Cheras and Assunta Hospital; EdgeProp adds Klinik Kucai, Klinik Kuchai Avenue and Klinik Tan Lee, also with no figures
- The other MRT stations the filed list names together with no distance to any of them: Kuchai, Chan Sow Lin, TRX, Conlay, KLCC, Sungai Besi and Bukit Bintang
- KLIA, KL Sentral, the nearest hypermarket by road and the nearest hospital by road — no figure from any source
Three location traps on this project, all real, all avoided here. One: this is not the city centre. The developer’s own page says the project is “right in the heart of Kuala Lumpur”; the filed site is Salak South Baru, 57100, roughly 6 km south of it, and the developer’s own filed Lokasi list names KLCC and Bukit Bintang as destinations elsewhere, which is the opposite of being in the heart of the city. PropertyGuru 23046 compounds it with postcode 50000 and a “KL City Centre” breadcrumb. Two: station identifiers. PropertySifu’s PY28 for Taman Naga Emas is correct; EdgeProp’s “Kuchai Lama (SSP189)” and “Taman Naga Emas (SSP190)” are EdgeProp’s own internal identifiers, not station codes — SSP is the old Sungai Buloh–Serdang–Putrajaya line name — and EdgeProp gives no distance for either. “The latest MRT” is supported but ageing: PY28 opened 16 March 2023, over three years ago. Three: zoning analysis is not a filed fact. PropertySifu alone publishes “MX zoning, plot ratio 6, inside the Taman Naga Emas MRT2 TOD zone with a 7.5% planning uplift”, citing no DBKL document; none was found. It is interesting context, it is one portal’s analysis, and PropertySifu’s own gloss that “surrounding density may rise” is its inference, not a filing. Finally, a neighbour worth knowing about rather than confusing: The Suite Starz / The Starz @ KL South (developer Golden Plateau Sdn Bhd / CMMC Sdn Bhd, 346 units in two 25-storey towers, completed 2020) is filed on the same street, Jalan 38, 57100 Salak Selatan. Same street is not the same land, and an unverified forum claim about this site’s provenance is not published here.
Statutory register — RESIDENSI AMBIEN KUALA LUMPUR, the two filings and the government record side by side
Malaysian law requires a licensed housing developer to file and display statutory advertisement particulars, and that filing is public. On this project the arrangement is unusual and it matters. Two generations of filing exist for the one registered phase 30366-1: a 2023-era filing that carries the full statutory block but whose completion date has lapsed, and a current June 2026 re-filing that carries no statutory block at all. The government register is therefore doing the work both brochures leave undone — it is where the real APDL comes from, where the only filed storey figure comes from, and where the approved 12-month extension of the handover date is published. Every column below is reproduced from the source named at its head, read on 8 October 2026. A negative control was run on the same paths: 30366-2 returns 404 on both HIMS and the register, confirming there is no second phase, and the June 2026 filing’s companion files 404 as well — so these are real documents and not an HTML shell.
(A) The 2023-era filing 30366-1 — the only document with a statutory block | (B) The current June 2026 P45 re-filing — no statutory block at all | (C) KPKT TEDUH register 30366-1 — where the permit, the storeys and the extension live |
|---|---|---|
Document hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/30366/30366-1/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf and IKLAN_AKHBAR_01.pdf — brochure and newspaper advertisement, statutory block identical in bothCarries the statutory Butir-Butir Iklan block? YES — in full (banner) Dibawakan oleh FAITHVIEW GROUP — a brand, not a licensee Pemaju FAITHVIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD (1302278-D) Alamat MENARA FAITHVIEW, NO 21, JALAN KL 3/15, TAMAN KOTA LAKSAMANA, SEKSYEN 3, 75200 MELAKA · TEL 06-286 0888 · FAX 06-286 0666 — the developer’s head office in Melaka, not the site Nama Pemajuan Perumahan Residensi Ambien Kuala Lumpur No. Lesen Pemaju 30366/02-2028/0043(N) — the register’s live record carries (A) Tempoh Sahlaku (licence) 13/02/2023 – 12/02/2028 No. Permit Iklan & Jualan (APDL) XXXX — A LITERAL PLACEHOLDERTempoh Sahlaku (permit) XXXX — A LITERAL PLACEHOLDER. Lapse-versus-current cannot be assessed from this documentPihak Berkuasa Tempatan Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan DBKL.JKB: BP S3 OSC 2023 0222 Pegangan Tanah BEBAS (freehold) · Tarikh Tamat Tempoh Pajakan TIADA Sekatan Kepentingan TIADA · Bebanan Tanah GADAIAN (CIMB Bank Berhad) Perihal (Spesifikasi) Rumah PANGSAPURI Bilangan Unit 482 unit — and the filed type schedule sums to it exactly: 146 + 240 + 96 Harga MIN RM448,230.00 · MAK RM747,600.00 — one development-wide band; per-type prices NOT PRINTED Tarikh Jangka Siap September 2026 — already past, and superseded by the register’s approved extension Unit schedule A/A1 2 bed 2 bath, 568.2 + 100.4 = 668.6 sq ft, 146 units, 1 bay · B/B1 3 bed 2 bath, 757.9 + 108.1 = 866.0 sq ft, 240 units, 2 bays · C/C1 4 bed 3 bath, 953.0 + 127.0 = 1,080.0 sq ft, 96 units, 2 bays (approval banner) IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA Bilangan Tingkat · Bilangan Blok · Keluasan Tanah · Syarat Nyata · lot / PT / mukim / daerah all NOT PRINTED Diskaun Bumiputera NO SUCH FIELD EXISTS in this document — recorded as a positive finding | Document hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/30366/P45/P45-20260611-00019603/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf — the current filing, lodged June 2026 on the post-2024 P45 form. Its path is unguessable and was recovered from the KPKT register’s own JSON recordCarries the statutory Butir-Butir Iklan block? NO. NONE AT ALL. Read twice at two offsets: across the whole 6,203-character document there is no Pemaju, no No. Lesen Pemaju, no No. Permit Iklan & Jualan, no Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan, no Tarikh Jangka Siap, no Harga, no Jumlah Unit, no Pegangan Tanah and no Bebanan What it does contain banners, a Lokasi landmark list with no distances, a unit-specification sheet, an electrical and sanitary schedule, a finishes schedule, and a 24-item facilities list Banner text, verbatim HAK MILIK KEKAL (freehold) · DENSITI RENDAH (low density) · UNIT TERHAD (limited units) · RUMAH CONTOH TELAH DIBUKA UNTUK DIKUNJUNG · 09.00am – 05.30pm (BUKA SETIAP HARI) · MRT 2 PEJABAT URUSAN The density problem, in one line this filing claims DENSITI RENDAH and prints no Keluasan Tanah, so the claim has no filed denominator — see the note below the table Unit schedule, as printed A (A1 shown) 649 SQFT, 2 bed 2 bath, 1 bay · B (B1 shown) 846 SQFT, 3 bed 2 bath, 2 bays · C (C1 shown) 1,060 SQFT, 4 bed 3 bath, 2–3 bays. Square feet only; no metric equivalents published Against the 2023 filing −19.6 / −20 / −20 sq ft — about twenty square feet smaller on all three types Jumlah Unit per type NOT PRINTED in this filing — the 146 / 240 / 96 split exists only in the 2023 filing Facilities, levels printed Tingkat 6 (the deck, per the heading Kemudahan Eksklusif_Tingkat 6) · Tingkat 7 (co-working) · Tingkat Bawah (day-care room and lounge). The rooftop viewing deck has no printed level; the list repeats the games room and counts two toilets Taska (day-care) filed TINGKAT BAWAH, BILIK SAHAJA — room only, the developer’s own words for shell space with no fit-out commitment Companion files IKLAN_BROSUR_02 and IKLAN_AKHBAR_01 at this path both 404Consequence for a buyer anyone reading only the current brochure sees no licence, no permit, no price, no completion date, no tenure and no unit count | Record teduh.kpkt.gov.my/api/projek-swasta/30366-1 — the public register. 30366-2 returns 404: there is no second phaseNama RESIDENSI AMBIEN · Daerah Kuala Lumpur · Negeri WP Kuala Lumpur Coordinate 3.083676, 101.698206 Pemaju FAITHVIEW RESOURCES SDN. BHD., developer code 30366 · register track record 1 project, 0 sick, 0 abandoned No. Lesen Pemaju 30366/02-2028/0043(A) — suffix (A) live, against (N) printed in the filing · valid 13 Feb 2023 – 12 Feb 2028, CURRENT APDL 30366-1/07-2027/0550(R)-(S) — the real permit the filings print as XXXXPermit validity 18 Jul 2026 – 17 Jul 2027 — CURRENT as at 8 October 2026, about nine months to run Earlier permits two records, both ended 17 Jul 2026 — so the live (R) is a renewal, the third in the chain. The register publishes no reason for any renewal Jenis bangunan Pangsapuri Servis (serviced apartment) · jumlah_unit 482 · tingkat 25 — the only filed storey figure anywhere, against 31 from every marketing source pjb.jenis Jadual H — Schedule H, all 482 units tempohAsal 36 Bulan · tarikhPjbPertama 16 October 2023 · serahKosongIkutPjb 16 October 2026 pindaanTempohSerahKosong Ya · tempohTambahanDiluluskan 12 Bulan · tempohPembinaanBaharu 48 Bulan serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama 16 October 2027 — the governing handover date, and the register is the only source that publishes it peratus 72.27, reported beside komponen: Lancar — construction progress, not a sales figure ccc - — no CCC issued · vp - — no vacant possession deliveredStatus Lancar — on schedule against the revised 48-month period, not the original 36 hargaMin / hargaMax RM448,230 – RM866,400 — the minimum agrees with the filing exactly; the maximum is RM118,800 higher Keluasan Tanah · mukim · lot / PT · Syarat Nyata · Bumiputera quota · main contractor all absent from the register too Extension instrument the register confirms a 12-month extension was approved but publishes no approval reference, no approval date and nothing about the LAD consequence |
Read the three columns together and the shape of the problem is obvious. The document a buyer is handed today (B) contains no licence, no permit, no price, no tenure, no unit count and no completion date. The document that does contain them (A) prints the APDL as XXXX and prints a completion date that has already passed. Only the government register (C) carries the real permit, the only filed storey figure, and the approved 12-month extension that moves handover to 16 October 2027. Three further disagreements are visible across the columns: the licence suffix is (N) filed and (A) live; the statutory maximum is RM747,600 filed and RM866,400 in the register; and the built-ups are 668.6 / 866.0 / 1,080.0 sq ft in filing A and 649 / 846 / 1,060 in filing B. On the DENSITI RENDAH banner in filing B: Keluasan Tanah is printed in neither filing, so density cannot be computed from a filed denominator at all — the only land areas in circulation are a portal’s and an agency’s (71,438 sq ft / 1.6401 acres from IQI, “1.64 acres”, “1.6 acres”, “about 2 acres”), and on every one of them the result is a high-rise density of roughly 241 to 301 units per acre. That range is my arithmetic on unfiled land areas, and it is not published by anyone as a density figure.
Price labelling, so there is no ambiguity about what is published above. The two RM bands in the table are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum — Harga MIN/MAK as printed in the 2023-era KPKT advertisement brochure and newspaper advertisement, and hargaMin/hargaMax as held in the KPKT TEDUH register — and the two government records disagree on the maximum by RM118,800, which is said rather than reconciled. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Per-type statutory prices are not printed by either filing. What is withheld, and why: one anonymous post in the Lowyat thread quotes a starting figure for the 669 sq ft two-bedroom type that sits below the filed statutory minimum and labels it with a pricing term this page does not repeat. That figure is withheld in full — it is carried by one anonymous post, on one publisher, and by no independent source, while every indexed commercial source prints a “from” figure equal to or above the filed minimum. Because third-party price language on this project is contaminated in that way, no third-party price appears on this page at all. The monthly-instalment banners are withheld too: the Google Sites microsite runs a “monthly from” headline and EdgeProp and PropertySifu each print an indicative monthly repayment, and a financing figure is not a published price. And as standing policy on every project page on this site, certain commercial terms are deliberately withheld and none of them is published here, ever. A positive finding for completeness: no Diskaun Bumiputera field exists in either filed document, and no Bumiputera quota field appears in the register record. The figure that governs what you pay is the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery.
Can a foreigner buy here? No — and the filed prices are the reason
Not one unit on the filed schedule qualifies, and no marketing source on this project says so. This is Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, settled by the filed Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur and the filed DBKL building-plan reference DBKL.JKB: BP S3 OSC 2023 0222. The applicable floor is therefore the Kuala Lumpur / Federal Territory minimum purchase price of RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit consent — and not Selangor’s RM2,000,000 Zone 1 and Zone 2 figure for strata and gated landed strata, nor the RM1,000,000 that applies in Selangor Zone 3, meaning Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam only. The filed statutory maximum for the whole development is RM747,600 in the KPKT documents and RM866,400 in the register. On either figure, the most expensive unit in the development falls short of RM1,000,000, so all 482 units are closed to a foreign purchaser on the filed schedule. Two caveats stated honestly: the filed band is a development-wide band and no per-type statutory price is published by anyone, and the threshold is applied to the actual purchase price in the SPA. If you are buying from outside Malaysia, get the specific unit’s SPA price and have eligibility confirmed in writing before anything else — ask me and I will put it to Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd for you.
Construction progress, the CCC, and what “Lancar” actually means here
The register’s own fields: peratus 72.27, reported beside komponen: Lancar; ccc -; vp -. So the tower is filed at roughly three quarters built, with no CCC issued and no vacant possession delivered. The peratus field is construction progress and nothing else — it is not a sales percentage, and the two are routinely confused on this project. Separately, PropertySifu’s KPKT panel reports 467 of 482 units sold as at 28 August 2026: a different measure, from a portal, dated, and carried here as that portal’s reading of a KPKT figure rather than as a filed fact. On “Lancar”: the register’s status means on schedule against the revised 48-month period created by the approved 12-month extension — not against the original 36 months, and not against the Tarikh Jangka Siap of September 2026 that both filed documents still print. One more figure that is a charge and not a price concession, published for completeness: the maintenance and service charge of RM0.30 per square foot, from PropertySifu, excluding the sinking fund, and not printed in either filing. The sinking fund rate, the share-unit allocation and the basis of the charge are all unpublished. Ask me and I will go and look at the site.
What this page does not publish, and why
Louis’s standing policy, applied to every project page on this site: no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera figure, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, and no yield or ROI projection is published here, ever. On this project that means three specific withholdings, each named so you know what is missing and why: a sub-statutory-minimum figure from one anonymous forum post, withheld in full and carried by no independent source; the “monthly from” banner on the Google Sites microsite and the indicative monthly repayments on EdgeProp and PropertySifu, all withheld as financing claims rather than prices; and, because a third-party source uses that pricing language here at all, every third-party price on this project is treated as contaminated and none appears on this page — only the two filed government bands. Beyond that, this page leaves blank everything no named source published: the land area, without which the developer’s own filed “low density” banner cannot be tested; the lot and PT number, the mukim, the seksyen and the land title; Syarat Nyata, and with it whether “commercial title” is true and what it would cost in utility tariffs and assessment rates; per-type statutory prices; Bilangan Tingkat and Bilangan Blok in the statutory block; the extension-of-time approval reference, its date and its LAD consequence; share units and the basis of the maintenance charge; the sinking fund rate; the main contractor, the architect, the C&S and M&E consultants and any contract sum — the developer is privately held, so there is no Bursa announcement to recover them or the lot number from; floor plans and the site plan as published images, which no source publishes at all; total, visitor, EV and motorcycle parking; the subject of every developer image, since the gallery carries no captions and no alt text; the land’s provenance — an unverified forum claim that it was bought from a previous developer’s abandoned project is supported by no filing, no news report and no registry record and is not published here; whether a pedestrian link bridge to Taman Naga Emas exists or is committed, asserted by a single forum post and confirmed by nothing; the sales-gallery address for this project, the filed brochure labelling it only MRT 2 Pejabat Urusan while the one address on the developer’s site appears under its Kota Syahbandar section and may be mis-assigned; whether the 467-of-482 sold figure is still current; any JV, equity split or landowner; the DLP and the actual Schedule H LAD terms, which live in the SPA; and the lift specification beyond a portal-sourced count, the unit-per-floor distribution by level, orientation, and which levels carry which unit types. Every one of those is a question I will put to Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd in writing for you.
Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd — one project, five licensees, one brand on five sites, and a first Kuala Lumpur scheme
The licensed developer is FAITHVIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD, printed in both filed KPKT documents as (1302278-D), and held in the KPKT developer register as FAITHVIEW RESOURCES SDN. BHD., developer code 30366. Its licence is 30366/02-2028/0043, valid 13 February 2023 to 12 February 2028 — the brochure prints the serial with the (N) suffix and the register’s live record carries (A). The register’s track record for this licensee is short and clean: one project, zero sick, zero abandoned, status Lancar. The project is this one. Its filed address is Menara Faithview, No 21, Jalan KL 3/15, Taman Kota Laksamana, Seksyen 3, 75200 Melaka, telephone 06-286 0888 — the developer’s head office, in a different state from the site — and the register adds a registered office at 123b, Jalan 25 Taman Melaka Raya, 75000 Melaka Tengah, with contacts 062860888, 0127020199, annabellelim@faithview-dev.com and www.faithview-dev.com.
Three different Faithview companies are in circulation on this one project, and only one of them is your SPA counterparty. Every marketing source — the developer’s own portfolio page, both microsites, EdgeProp, PropertyGuru, PropertySifu, IQI, the forum thread — names the developer as “Faithview Group”. There is no such registered licensee. And the developer’s own website footer names a third company: FAITHVIEW MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (1351112-A), which holds no KPKT developer licence at all and does not appear in the developer register. So the website that carries this project is published by a company that is not the licensee, while the brand on the brochure banner — Dibawakan oleh FAITHVIEW GROUP — is not a licensee either. Check that the company name and number on your SPA read Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd, 1302278-D, and nothing else.
Five separate licensed Faithview SPVs exist, all sharing one Melaka Raya registered office, and the group’s track record is split across them. From the KPKT developer register: Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd, code 30366, licence 30366/02-2028/0043(A), 13 Feb 2023 – 12 Feb 2028 — 1 project, this one, Lancar. Faithview Ambience Sdn Bhd, code 20161, 20161/09-2028/1163(A) — 2 projects, both Siap Dengan CCC. Faithview Group Development Sdn Bhd, code 13796, 13796/08-2028/1074(R) — 2 projects: Kayangan Villas Siap Dengan CCC, and Twinview Residence, whose permit has been cancelled (Permit Telah Dibatalkan). Faithview Holding Sdn Bhd, code 31375, 31375/05-2031/0122(A) — 1 project, Ambience Residence in Melaka, Belum Mula. Faithview Realty Sdn Bhd, code 12292, 12292/02-2029/0342(A) — 1 project, The Wave Residence, Siap Dengan CCC. Totals across the group: 7 licensed schemes, 4 completed with a CCC, 0 sick, 0 abandoned, 1 permit cancelled. PropertySifu’s own panel instead reports “9 projects registered, 2 completed, 3 under construction, 0 on KPKT’s watch list” — a different figure from the register on every line. This page publishes the register’s numbers, and attributes the track record to the group rather than to the licensee, because the licensee has exactly one project. And this is Faithview’s first Kuala Lumpur project — every other registered scheme under all five licensees is in Melaka Tengah, Melaka. A forum poster reports an agent saying the same thing, which corroborates the register. It is stated here as a neutral fact, not as a warning.
“Ambience Residence” is a Faithview brand used on at least five different sites, and three of them are in Melaka — which is the live contamination risk on this project. Three live KPKT schemes carry the brand: this one (Residensi Ambien, code 30366, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, 482 units, registry band RM448,230–RM866,400, Lancar); Pangsapuri Gadong Harmoni @ Ambience Residence (licensee Faithview Ambience Sdn Bhd, code 20161, Melaka Tengah, 723 units, registry band RM216,720–RM377,720, Siap Dengan CCC dated 31/10/2025); and Ambience Residence (licensee Faithview Holding Sdn Bhd, code 31375, Melaka Tengah, 620 units, registry band RM435,000–RM758,000, Belum Mula). Add “Ambience Residence Kota Syahbandar” from the developer’s own site and the “Ambience Ayer Keroh” and “Ambience Klebang” upcoming projects in its media library, and the brand covers five sites. Three specific traps follow. PropertyGuru record 21433, “Ambience Residence (Residensi Nikel)”, is the Melaka project — Jalan Pulau Gadong, 75200 Melaka, Klebang, with Faithview Ambience Sdn Bhd named in its own description — and PropertyGuru runs filtered pages off it such as “Houses for Sale — Below RM300K at Ambience Residence (Residensi Nikel)”. A sub-RM300,000 “Ambience Residence” headline belongs to Melaka, not to Kuala Lumpur. The CCC dated 31 October 2025 belongs to the Melaka scheme too: this project’s register record prints ccc and vp as -. And the Melaka sibling’s own records are internally inconsistent — the register names it “Pangsapuri Gadong Harmoni @ Ambience Residence” with a 2025 CCC, while PropertyGuru calls the same place “Residensi Nikel” with completion 2027 and contradicts itself on tenure and on unit count. None of those bands, dates or certificates belongs on this page.
On the land and the structure, what is published is thin and what is not published is said. Bebanan Tanah is Gadaian in favour of CIMB Bank Berhad — a conventional bank charge, printed in both filed documents — and Sekatan Kepentingan is Tiada. Beyond that: no JV or partner is named by any source, in either filing, in the register, on the developer’s site or on any portal; no landowner, equity split or land price is published; and no main contractor is published by anyone. There is also no Bursa route into this project — Faithview is privately held, there is no listed-company newsroom, and no contractor announcement naming Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd as employer was found. On this series of pages a Bursa contract announcement is usually what recovers a land title, a lot number and a mukim when a filing omits them; here nothing recovers them, which is why the lot, PT number, mukim and land title are printed as NOT PRINTED. One unverified claim is recorded only to say that it is not published: a forum poster reports agents saying the land was bought from a previous developer’s abandoned project, with old piling to be removed. No filing, no news report and no registry record supports it, the poster who raised it was told to confirm with the developer, and it is not published on this page. For context rather than evidence: The Suite Starz / The Starz @ KL South (Golden Plateau Sdn Bhd / CMMC Sdn Bhd, 346 units in two 25-storey towers, completed 2020) is filed on the same street, Jalan 38, 57100 Salak Selatan, and forum posters place this project beside it. Same street is not evidence of the same land.
On awards and green certification the answer is the cleanest one available, and it is a credit to the developer’s restraint rather than a gap. No award, shortlisting or nomination naming this project was found from any source — not on the developer’s page, not on either microsite, not on EdgeProp, PropertyGuru, PropertySifu or IQI, and not in the forum thread; a targeted award search returned nothing for Faithview. The developer has no awards page at all, and its site publishes no statutory, terms, disclaimer or policy page either. On certification: the GreenRE public register was checked across all three tiers — Silver (141 rows), Gold (130 rows) and Bronze (332 rows) — and none of “Ambien”, “Ambience”, “Faithview” or “Salak” appears in any of them; no GBI certification or claim was found for this project or this developer; and the developer makes no green claim of any kind — no logo, no “certified”, no “provisional”, no “targeting”. So there is nothing to downgrade, nothing to qualify, and no logo-without-a-rating trap on this page. Two borrowed-credential risks are named explicitly because both are real here. Any Melaka Ambience credential would belong to Faithview Ambience Sdn Bhd or Faithview Holding Sdn Bhd, not to this licensee. And Aricia Residences, a different Sungai Besi project by a different developer, holds a provisional GreenRE Silver — that belongs to Aricia, it is provisional rather than certified, and it is not borrowed onto this page.
A last word on the two microsites, because what they are matters to how much weight their figures carry. Neither ambience-residence.com nor ambienceresidence-kl.com.my is a developer publication. The developer’s own domain is faithview-dev.com — it is the URL the KPKT register itself prints for the licensee. ambienceresidence-kl.com.my describes itself as the “Official Website for Ambience Residence KL”, yet it is hosted on Google Sites and carries no copyright line, no company name, no agency, REN or E number and no disclaimer; its calls to action are appointment and loan-eligibility forms that identify nobody. It is also the sole source of the Chinese name 怡宁苑 and of the unsupported “Duplex Available!” banner. ambience-residence.com likewise names no owner, carries no agency number and no disclaimer, and footers only “Copyright 2023 – Ambience Residence”. This page treats both as unattributed agent microsites, and attributes every figure taken from them accordingly. By contrast, what the developer itself does publish on its own domain is sparse: no unit types, no built-ups and no facilities list, and three quotable sentences — “a freehold serviced apartment development right in the heart of Kuala Lumpur”, “features a residence with low density, with only 482 units”, and “within walking distance of the MRT and bus station” — of which the first is not supportable as written, the second has no filed denominator, and the third comes with no distance from the developer at all.
Developer, land and certification particulars read from the two filed KPKT statutory documents for 30366-1 (the 2023-era IKLAN_BROSUR_01 and IKLAN_AKHBAR_01, and the June 2026 P45 re-filing), the KPKT TEDUH project record 30366-1 and the TEDUH developer register query for FAITHVIEW, the developer’s own site and its open content management system, and named EdgeProp, PropertyGuru, PropertySifu and IQI records — all read on 8 October 2026. The GreenRE Silver, Gold and Bronze project registers were queried the same day with no match on Ambien, Ambience, Faithview or Salak; rows were truncated at the tail of each table, so that is strong but not absolute, and it is said rather than overstated. No GBI entry or claim was found. No Summary_* or sales-package file was opened, and no price concession of any kind was sought or recorded.
Questions buyers actually ask about Ambience Residence @ Sungai Besi
When will Ambience Residence actually be handed over? Has the date moved?
30366-1 states it field by field: contract Jadual H; tempohAsal 36 Bulan; first SPA (tarikhPjbPertama) 16 October 2023; vacant possession per that first contract (serahKosongIkutPjb) 16 October 2026; pindaanTempohSerahKosong Ya — the delivery period has been amended; tempohTambahanDiluluskan 12 Bulan; tempohPembinaanBaharu 48 Bulan; and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama 16 October 2027. Meanwhile both filed KPKT documents still print Tarikh Jangka Siap: September 2026, a date that passed before this page was written, and no brochure, no microsite, no portal and no agent page mentions the extension at all. The register’s own project status, Lancar, is measured against the revised 48-month period, not the original 36. On a Schedule H contract an approved extension of the delivery period is precisely the instrument that alters LAD exposure for the extended year. The extension approval itself is not published — no reference, no date of approval, nothing about the LAD consequence — so this page does not state the outcome as settled. Take legal advice on what the extension does to your own entitlement, and read the delivery clause in your own SPA.Can a foreigner buy at Ambience Residence?
Where exactly is this project, and what is it actually called?
Is it freehold? And what is the land charged against?
How big are the units, really? I have seen several different figures.
What is the APDL, and is it current?
XXXX placeholder, with XXXX validity. That is the brochure and the newspaper advertisement alike. On those documents alone, lapse-versus-current cannot be assessed at all — and the developer’s licence validity must never be passed off as the permit’s, because they are different instruments with different expiry dates. The KPKT TEDUH register prints the real permit: 30366-1/07-2027/0550(R)-(S), valid 18 July 2026 to 17 July 2027, which is current as at 8 October 2026 with roughly nine months to run. The register also shows two earlier permit records, both ended 17 July 2026, so the live (R) suffix is a renewal — the third in the chain. PropertySifu independently publishes the same permit number and the same licence serial, so there are two independent sources for the real permit against a placeholder in the developer’s own statutory filing. One more detail: the brochure prints the developer’s licence as 30366/02-2028/0043(N) while the register’s live record is 30366/02-2028/0043(A) — same serial, same validity, 13 February 2023 to 12 February 2028. This page publishes the register’s version of both.Who is the licensed developer? Is it “Faithview Group”?
I keep seeing a sub-RM300,000 “Ambience Residence” and a 2025 completion certificate. Are those this project?
- and vp as -. There is no CCC and no vacant possession on this project.Is it 25 storeys or 31?
tingkat: 25 is the only filed number anywhere, and this page publishes it as the filed one while showing marketing’s 31 beside it. The arithmetic favours 25: 482 ÷ 25 = 19.3 units per floor, which sits exactly inside the marketed “about 11 to 20 units per floor” and matches the forum thread’s “20 per floor”; 482 ÷ 31 = 15.5, which is below the marketed range. The filed June 2026 brochure also puts the main facilities deck on Tingkat 6 and co-working on Tingkat 7, so residential levels begin around level 8 — on a 31-storey tower that would leave about 24 residential floors, again near 25. Those two divisions and that inference are my arithmetic, not a filed figure. Nobody publishes Bilangan Blok either; BLOK A appears only as a floor-plan label, and every secondary source describes a single tower.Is this really a “low density” development?
How far is the MRT, and which station is it?
What are the prices?
Is it commercial title? And is there really a duplex?
30366-2 returns 404 on both HIMS and the register. There is no “last phase”. A dual-key claim is made by no source and the filed room lists would not support one.Are all 482 units inside the HDA, or is part of it a non-HDA serviced-office product?
How much has actually been built, and is there a CCC?
30366-1: peratus 72.27, reported beside komponen: Lancar; ccc -; vp -. The peratus figure is construction progress and nothing else — it is not a sales percentage, and it must not be read as one. PropertySifu separately reports 467 of 482 units sold as at 28 August 2026, which is a different measure from a different source, dated, and carried here as that portal’s reading of a KPKT figure rather than as a filed fact. Read the two together and the picture is a tower about three quarters built, largely sold, with a delivery date that has already been extended once by twelve months. No dated site photograph is published by the developer at a usable size — its media library holds three construction-progress files, all 428 × 259 pixels, too small to publish. Ask me and I will go and look at the site.Is Ambience Residence green-certified, or has it won an award?
What does this page deliberately not publish, and why?
Want the filed documents and the register record, rather than a brochure summary?
I will send you the 2023-era KPKT statutory brochure and newspaper advertisement for 30366-1, the current June 2026 P45 re-filing so you can see for yourself that it carries no statutory block, and the KPKT register record that holds the real APDL, the only filed storey figure and the approved 12-month extension of time that moves handover to 16 October 2027. I will also put every blank on this page to Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd in writing on your behalf — starting with the land area, the mukim, the Syarat Nyata, the per-type prices and which built-up is written into the SPA schedule.
Louis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
I work Kuala Lumpur and Selangor new launches, and I publish the filed statutory particulars and the government register record rather than brochure copy. On this project that is worth two concrete things. The register is the only source anywhere that says the handover date was extended by twelve months, to 16 October 2027 — both filed documents still print September 2026, a date that has already passed, and seven different completion dates are in circulation including one on my own agency’s page. And on the filed prices no unit reaches the RM1,000,000 Kuala Lumpur foreign-buyer floor, so the whole development is closed to foreign buyers — which no marketing source on this project mentions, and which I have said here plainly because a large part of my audience is overseas. If a figure on this page matters to your decision, ask me for the document it came from and I will send it. If a blank matters, I will go and ask Faithview Resources Sdn Bhd in writing.
Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the two filed KPKT statutory documents for 30366-1, the KPKT TEDUH project and developer registers, the GreenRE Silver, Gold and Bronze registers, the developer’s own site, and named EdgeProp, PropertyGuru, PropertySifu and IQI records, all read on 8 October 2026. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Worth putting beside this one
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: Faithview (1 development on this site)
Where it is: Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur (KL)
The unit mix, the permitted price and how far up it is
None of this table is the developer’s account of itself. It is what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government records from the 7(f) returns: unit type, bedrooms and bathrooms, built-up area, unit count, the price range on the permit, and the certified percentage complete. A brochure price can be revised; the price on the permit was filed. A brochure need not mention progress; the percentage is certified. The status vocabulary is theirs too: Lancar (on schedule), Lewat (behind), Sakit (sick), Terbengkalai (abandoned).
30366-1 · RESIDENSI AMBIEN
Overall status: Lancar — on schedule
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangsapuri Servis 25 storeys Lancar | 2, 3, 4 / 2, 3 | — | 482 | RM448,230.00 – RM866,400.00 | 78.54% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
This is the document the developer had to file, and the housing department had to approve, before it was allowed to advertise at all — served from the ministry’s own host. It normally carries the location plan, the developer licence and building-plan approval references, the expected completion date, the encumbrance position, and the unit count and price floor and ceiling for each type. The brochure a salesperson hands you can be reissued. This one cannot.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 30366-1. Re-read weekly.
What to do with the number. Read it against the delivery date in your own agreement, not against what a salesperson says. A project with a year left on its statutory clock and a third of the building up is telling you something the brochure will not.
How does that compare? Every development on this site, grouped by register status — cancelled, abandoned and behind schedule first.
No floor plan is reproduced on this page — but the drawings are findable
A floor plan is the developer’s copyright. This site does not mirror one and let you assume it is official. What it can do is send you to the drawing itself.
The advertisement the developer filed and the housing department approved normally carries the location plan and the unit count and price for each type. A salesperson’s brochure can be reissued. This one cannot.
The drawing that binds the developer is the one attached to your own sale and purchase agreement. Anything on any website is a reference copy — check the schedule to your contract before you sign.