Bamboo Hills Residences, Jalan Ipoh — registered as Residensi Bukit Bamboo, KPKT 30343-2 and 30343-1: 2,517 Schedule H homes, 100% of them licensed, and a UOA project that no marketing surface admits is a UOA project

Eight things about Bamboo Hills Residences that are true, sourced, and published nowhere else together

Four of these are points in the developer’s favour and four are things a buyer will not find in any brochure. Both halves are below, and neither is softened.

Nine filed type codes, three marketed built-ups, and no document that links them

The filed type codes are A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 — nine codes, identical in both generations and both phases. NOT ONE CARRIES A SQUARE-FOOT FIGURE. Both brochures carry a per-type fixtures-and-fittings table and plan sheets labelling Bilik Tidur counts, but no area at all. So every built-up in circulation for this project is a MARKETING figure, and this page labels them that way. No source maps the nine codes to the three marketed sizes, and nobody publishes a per-type unit count for any tower. The register gives project-level ranges only: bilik: “2, 3” on both records, and keluasan: “0 mps” — the “not filed” value, not a built-up in disguise.

Nothing on this page presents a built-up, a bedroom count, a bathroom count or a car-park figure as a filed fact, because not one of them is filed. The register’s project-level ranges (bilik: 2, 3 and bilikAir) are labelled as register ranges wherever they appear. The stamped floor plan annexed to your own Schedule H SPA is the only document that binds anyone to a layout.

Every image on this page, with where it came from and what it does and does not establish

THE BIG REFUSAL, stated plainly because it is the single most dangerous thing about this project’s image record. One uploads tree on the developer’s microsite serves TWO different developments — the dining enclave that opened in 2022 and the residential towers launched in 2024 — and the content-management-system titles say only “Bamboo Hills”: the brand, not the component. Twelve 2022-dated assets titled “Bamboo Hills” were therefore REFUSED for this page, including two numbered renders, a top banner, three developer cards, three maps and two logos. The rule this project adds to the house standard: check a gallery’s folder dates against the COMPONENT’s own launch, not merely against a completion certificate. Nothing on this page was picked by filename. Two further items were confirmed to exist and deliberately excluded: a memorandum-of-understanding photograph naming the podium grocer in its filename, and a The Edge Malaysia issue-1516 press clipping. Neither is a project render and neither is used as one. The honest ceiling for this project, stated once: PROJECT CERTAINTY, ZERO SUBJECT CERTAINTY on everything except the map. The developer’s corporate host returns an empty media list for this project and for a positive control too, so that emptiness is inconclusive and never a negative. These are renders of a building that is about 51.3% built and due in 2029.

Where Bamboo Hills Residences actually is, and why no distance on this page has a number the developer stands behind

No filing gives a street address, a lot number, a PT number or a mukim. The filed documents print a sales-gallery address — the UOA Property Gallery at Suite G-1, Vertical Corporate Tower B, Bangsar South City — which is about 9 km away and is NOT the project site. That is worth saying plainly, because it is the address a client will copy out of the brochure. The site itself is located from the register’s own filed coordinates: 3.193867, 101.678377 (30343-2) and 3.193543, 101.677382 (30343-1) — about 115 m apart, on the Jalan Ipoh / Kentonmen corridor. Mukim Batu comes only from a 2013 Bursa land-acquisition report and is carried here as a press attribution, not as a filed fact.

RESIDENSI BUKIT BAMBOO — KPKT projects 30343-2 and 30343-1, as the statutory record prints them

Four filed documents, two register records, and a developer statutory panel that contradicts two of them. Both HIMS path forms are live for both phases, so the superseded and the current P45 generations can be read against each other — and they were, field by field. Credit where it is due: the developer DOES publish a statutory panel, on its microsite’s development page, carrying the licence, both permits, both plan references, all three price bands and the August 2029 completion date. That is more than most developers on this site publish. But two of its fields are wrong, and one of them is wrong in an unusual direction: it publishes the (N) permit form while a portal publishes the correct (A) — the first case on this site where the portal is right and the developer is not — and it prints the licence validity as “24/06/2024 to 23/06/2029 (5 years)”, which is the APDL’s start date with an end date that matches nothing at all. Reconstruct it from the licence’s own /01-2028/ segment: the licence runs 13 Jan 2023 to 12 Jan 2028, and the permits end 23 Jun 2027.

Sources for every cell above: the KPKT TEDUH register records 30343-2 and 30343-1; the current filed HIMS advertisement brochures at files/30343/P45/P45-20260608-00019548/ and files/30343/P45/P45-20260608-00019550/; the superseded generation at files/30343/30343-2/ and files/30343/30343-1/; the developer’s own statutory panel on its microsite’s development page; the GreenRE public register (certification-entry list and all four tier tables); and the UOA Limited Annual Report 2025. Nothing in the table is unsourced, and every “NOT PRINTED” is a field this page looked for and did not find.

Statutory particulars can change without notice. Verify the current licence, both permits and every price at TEDUH.KPKT.GOV.MY and in the Schedule H SPA before you commit. The two price bands published above are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands and the public registry bands, and nothing else on this page is a price.

Can a foreigner buy at Bamboo Hills Residences? The authority halves the answer, and the price question is the binding one

The authority question settles first, and it halves the answer. The filed plan references DBKL.JKB.BP U1 OSC 2023 3048 (20) and DBKL.JKB.BP U1 OSC 2023 3049 (21) are the DBKL form, printed identically in both generations of both phases, with Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur named as the approving authority on all four; the register reads daerah: Kuala Lumpur and negeri: Wp Kuala Lumpur on both records with no self-contradiction. So this is the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM1,000,000 — not Selangor’s RM2,000,000. Two independent published sources agree on the Kuala Lumpur figure and that it is half the Selangor Zone 1 figure, and both add that meeting the threshold does not guarantee approval: State Authority consent is still required. Confirm the current threshold with DBKL and the Federal Territories authority before relying on it — one of those two sources is internally dated inconsistently. Then the price question, per component, against RM1,000,000: Tower A RM486,000 (48.6% of the floor) to RM1,135,000 (1.135×); Blok B RM543,400 (54.3%) to RM1,228,000 (1.228×); Blok C RM586,000 (58.6%) to RM1,293,000 (1.293×). ALL THREE BANDS STRADDLE THE FLOOR. So this is not a clean yes and not a clean no. How many of the 2,517 units clear RM1,000,000 CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM ANY DOCUMENT, because neither filed generation prints a single per-type price and no register field, portal or developer page supplies one. That is the honest answer, and no marketing source anywhere even raises the question. What can be said, labelled as arithmetic on a published average: an analyst note puts the average selling price at RM700 psf, and the marketed built-ups top out at 904 sq ft, which gives RM632,800 at the ceiling size and the average price, while the band maxima imply about RM1,430 psf at 904 sq ft — roughly double the average. The strong inference is that only a small number of large or premium units reach the floor and the great majority of the 2,517 do not. An inference from an average, never a count. On TITLE, separately, the project is clean: Pegangan Tanah: Kekal (freehold, corroborated by six sources) · Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada in all four filed documents, checked explicitly because a filed interest restriction is the strongest single foreign-buyer signal and it is ABSENT here · Bebanan Tanah: Tiada, so no chargee is named in either generation, which is unusually clean and is not a discharge, since both generations read the same · APDL tail -(S) for strata, with Schedule H and Pangsapuri Suite, and strata is the permitted category for foreign buyers, so the landed prohibition that applies in some states is doubly irrelevant here. REFUSED: one portal asserts the project is “built on commercial-titled land”. No filing says this, and it matters, because commercial title would change quit rent, assessment rates, utility tariffs and financing terms. It is named as unsupported rather than quietly dropped. Practical advice: a foreign buyer must check the SPECIFIC unit’s price against RM1,000,000. Most of the stock will not qualify.

What being outside the HDA 1966 actually costs a buyer — and why it does NOT apply to the 2,517 homes

All 2,517 homes are inside the HDA 1966, on Schedule H, under two live permits. The component whose position no document states is the RETAIL PODIUM. So it is worth setting out, in plain language, what being outside that Act actually costs a buyer — and this applies to the podium and to any future commercial parcel, NOT to the 2,517 homes: no Schedule H or Schedule G statutory sale contract, so the terms are whatever the parties sign; no HDA liquidated-damages formula for late delivery; no section 7A housing development account holding the purchase money; no statutory 24-month defect liability period; no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims; no filed advertisement whose particulars the developer is bound to; and no KPKT licence conditions at all. The 2,517 homes have every one of those protections, and that is the single most important sentence in this block. The dining enclave and Astana are commercial and correctly outside the Act — they are not housing, so the Act does not reach them, and nothing is wrong there. The podium is the open question: the register’s two records describe only Pangsapuri Suite; the filed brochures never mention the podium; and its only floor-area figure comes from a single non-developer source. Ask the developer, in writing, whether the podium sits inside the Fasa 2A / 2B building-plan approvals and licences or outside the Act on commercial title.

Build progress, take-up and density — with the density working shown and six denominators named

Filed progress: 51.25% on Fasa 2A and 51.30% on Fasa 2B, register peratus, with status.keseluruhan: Lancar on both and ccc and vp both -. Take-up, read from the filed Baki Unit fields in the current generation (lodged 8 June 2026) — and remember Baki Unit means units REMAINING, not total: Tower A 709 of 755 taken up (93.9%), Blok B 771 of 881 (87.5%), Blok C 129 of 881 (14.6%) — overall 1,609 of 2,517 = 63.9%, with 908 remaining. Corroboration, and one near-miss worth printing: propertysifu gives 711 of 755 sold as at 28 August 2026 for Fasa 2A — two units off the filed 709. EdgeProp (Aug 2025) gives 847 of 1,762 = 48.07% for Fasa 2B against the June 2026 filing’s 900 of 1,762 — a consistent progression. Nobody claims 100% take-up, so there is nothing to refute. Density, with the working shown. No land area is filed: Keluasan Tanah is absent from all four brochures and register keluasan reads 0 mps on both records. Three acreages circulate for the residential parcel: 11 acres (The Edge Malaysia), “about 10 acres” (propertysifu) and 9.8 acres (PropertyGuru). The 11-acre figure survives three checks, and for once a press figure is CORROBORATED rather than refused: (1) the 2013 Bursa announcement records 483,322.71 sq ft = 11.095 acres, which matches The Edge’s 11 acres to within 1%, and one of the two sources is a statutory filing; (2) 16.8 + 11.095 = 27.9 acres, which reconciles with the published “27 acres” whole-site figure — the parts sum to the whole; (3) a plot-ratio sanity check lands at a net ratio of about 4.1 (2,517 units across the marketed 603–904 sq ft band, midpoint about 730 sq ft, is roughly 1.84m sq ft of residential saleable area, plus a reported 150,000 sq ft of retail, against 11 acres = 479,160 sq ft), implying a gross of roughly 5 once circulation, car park and plant are added — well inside a transit-adjacent DBKL envelope, so the figure is not absurd. The check does not discriminate between 9.8 and 11 acres, so if precision matters the honest range is 229 – 257 units per acre. Density on the 11-acre figure: 228.8 units per acre — our arithmetic on a PRESS parcel area, with no filed denominator. SIX denominators were refused, and naming them is the point: (1) 27 / 27.51 acres — the whole mixed development, carrying the dining enclave and Astana; it would give a flattering 93.2 per acre against a real ~229; (2) 16 acres — the dining enclave’s own site area, a different component already complete in 2022; (3) 16.8 acres — UOA’s pre-2013 adjacent holding; (4) 17,000 sq ft — Astana’s site; (5) 2,100 sq ft — Astana’s hall; (6) 150,000 sq ft — the podium’s net lettable area, and a lettable area is not a land area. And the developer makes no density claim and no “low density” claim of any kind, which is just as well at about 229 units per acre. No “first”, “largest” or “exclusive” claim is made for this project either.

Gross development value — one figure, in the wrong currency, with no rate

The only published gross development value is AUD 509.2 million, from the UOA Limited Annual Report 2025. It is in Australian dollars and NO source publishes a conversion rate, so it cannot be compared to a ringgit figure without a number nobody supplies. No ringgit GDV is published by anyone. What this page publishes instead, labelled as our own sums over the filed bands: the sum of the filed minima is RM1,361,931,400 (755 × 486,000 + 881 × 543,400 + 881 × 586,000) and the sum of the filed maxima is RM3,077,926,000. At any rate between RM2.6 and RM3.1 to the Australian dollar the published figure lands roughly between RM1.32bn and RM1.58bn, i.e. at or just above the filed minima sum and far below the maxima sum — which is a derived range, not a conversion, and it means NO stale-generation signal can be read from the GDV in either direction. Say exactly that rather than implying the figure confirms or contradicts anything.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis sells under a registered estate agency and holds developer material that is not his to publish. So no figure describing a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion of any kind, a freebie, an incentive, a Bumiputera entitlement percentage, an agency commission, a leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, or a yield or return projection appears anywhere on this page. Each of those words appears here once, in this paragraph only, and only in order to tell you it is excluded. The single exception is the word Bumiputera, which is named again further down this section, because on that one subject the field EXISTS and this page has to say so while withholding its value. What IS published, and exactly what it is: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands from the legally filed advertisement particulars, which are the SPA price ranges, and the public KPKT TEDUH registry bands. On this project those two agree TO THE SEN on all three components, and the figures are identical in BOTH filed generations — compared generation against generation, as the house standard requires. So nothing here is spliced, and no stale minimum or old-maximum hybrid is in play. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and a real figure for a real unit comes from the price list and the Schedule H SPA at the sales gallery. One figure set IS withheld, and here is the honest account of it. One publisher prints indicative “from” prices and per-type indicative prices, some of which sit BELOW the filed statutory minimum of RM486,000. Under the standing rule those figures are not recorded on this page at all. What is recorded is that the discrepancy exists and that it traces to exactly ONE publisher — counted correctly: The Edge Malaysia and EdgeProp are ONE publisher, The Edge Communications, and NEITHER carries a below-minimum figure; and propertysifu’s lowest figure, in its own body text, sits ABOVE the filed minimum, so it is not part of the discrepancy either. One publisher, not three. And one check that runs the other way was made and is clean: the nine filed type codes are plain A1, A2, B1, B2 and C1–C5 with no suffix pair of the kind that marks an affordable allocation, so there is no affordable tier hiding beneath the filed minimum: the filed minimum is an open-market price. On Bumiputera matters this page states only this: the field EXISTS in both filed brochures and on the developer’s own microsite, and its value is WITHHELD. No filing, register field or portal publishes a Bumiputera unit count, and none is stated here.

Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page

Twenty-one things a buyer would ask that NO source answers, printed because a gap is a finding: (1) a land area in any filing — Keluasan Tanah absent from all four brochures, register keluasan: 0 mps; (2) a lot number, PT number or mukim in any filing — the 2013 report describes six unnumbered parcels and no contractor Bursa announcement surfaced; (3) a built-up area in ANY filing — not one figure, across two generations and two phases; (4) per-type built-ups mapped to the nine filed codes — and both developer brochure PDFs are image-only with no text layer, so the schedule is almost certainly in them and is not machine-readable; (5) per-type unit counts for any tower; (6) per-type prices, hence how many units clear the foreign-buyer floor; (7) car-park allocation in any filing — Tempat Letak Kereta NOT PRINTED on all four, bays per type from one non-developer source; (8) facilities by numbered level from the developer; (9) the retail podium’s HDA status; (10) the podium’s floor area and storey count from the developer (only one portal gives either); (11) the podium grocer’s identity in any text source — only a filename names one; (12) the chargee or financier — both generations say Tiada and no source names a bank; (13) the ownership percentages of Concord Housing Development Sdn Bhd and Tiarawoods Sdn Bhd — both appear in the group’s corporate chart and the percentages are not extractable from the PDF text layer, so this page states the relationship and not a number; (14) any ringgit GDV; (15) whether the GreenRE Bronze provisional covers one phase or both — one row, no phase reference; (16) any Bumiputera allocation count; (17) a maintenance or service charge from the developer — only two non-developer sources give a figure; (18) the sinking-fund quantum, and any defect liability period term beyond the statutory Schedule H position; (19) a storey-by-storey unit distribution, and which floors carry which type; (20) the real permit numbers in the filed brochures — all four print placeholders and only the register has them; (21) a project website readable from here — bamboohillkl.com is robots-blocked though the developer’s own page links it, and it is the most likely home of the floor plans and the gallery. Also unavailable: IKLAN_AKHBAR_01.pdf 404s, so the newspaper-advertisement cross-read that has elsewhere carried a field the brochure omitted cannot be run on this project; and IKLAN_BROSUR_02.pdf 404s too. Louis will go and ask for every one of these.

Questions a buyer actually asks about Bamboo Hills Residences

Also worth seeing — and four of them are the SAME GROUP, read the same way

Published 9 October 2026 · Last verified 9 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register records 30343-2 and 30343-1, all four filed HIMS advertisement brochures (both generations, both phases), the GreenRE public register (all four tiers plus the certification-entry list), the developer’s own corporate site and microsite, and the UOA Limited Annual Report 2025. Marketing information, not an offer. Statutory particulars can change without notice — verify the current licence, both permits and every price at TEDUH.KPKT.GOV.MY and in the Schedule H SPA before you commit.