Branniganz Suites @ Bukit Bintang — 490 of its 759 units are office suites, and only 269 sit under the Housing Development Act

Seven things to know before you view — beginning with the one that changes what you are buying

None of this is a criticism of the building. These are gaps between documents, and disagreements between a developer and the portals selling for it. You are better off reading them here than finding them at the signing table.

Layouts — and four of the seven are offices, per the developer’s own page

Every figure below is from the developer’s unit-plan page, which is the nearest thing to a primary schedule that exists in public for this project. It is not the filed keluasan binaan schedule — no filed schedule was obtainable. The square-metre values are the developer’s own printed figures, not my conversion (I checked them: 495 sq ft = 45.99 m², 678 = 62.99, 344 = 31.96, so the developer’s rounding is correct). Beside each type I have put what the portals say about the same type, because on four of the seven they say something materially different. No unit count is published for any type by anyone, and no type carries a car park allocation.

Type A — 495 sq ft

495 sq ft (46 m²) · 2 bedrooms · 1 bathroom · residential layout

Developer: residentialPortals agree2 bed / 1 bath

The only type on which the developer and the portals fully agree. Accommodation as the developer prints it: Pantry, Dining, Living, Toilet and an air-conditioner ledge. PropertyGuru record 20501 markets the same 495 sq ft as a “2-Bedroom, Type A” with one bathroom. Two bedrooms sharing one bathroom at 495 sq ft is tight but coherent. Whether the air-conditioner ledge is inside or outside the stated built-up is not published.

Request the Type A plan

Type B1 — 678 sq ft

678 sq ft (63 m²) · developer: 1 bedroom, 2 bathrooms · portal: “Dual-Key, 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms”

Flat conflict on bedrooms“Dual-key” is portal wordingLargest residential type

The developer prints 1 bedroom and 2 bathrooms, with Pantry, Dining and Living. PropertyGuru record 20501 sells the same 678 sq ft as a “Dual-Key” with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The developer never uses the word dual-key anywhere on its site. A 678 sq ft one-bedroom with two bathrooms is consistent with a dual-key plan — two lockable sub-units behind one door, which matters for rental use and for how the unit is described on resale — but consistency is not confirmation. Read the bedroom count off the stamped plan, not the brochure or the portal.

Ask what B1 actually is

Type B2 — 678 sq ft

678 sq ft (63 m²) · developer: 1 bedroom, 2 bathrooms · plus an air-conditioner ledge

Same area as B1Difference not publishedPortals collapse B1 and B2 into “Type B”

Identical in area and in stated bedroom and bathroom count to B1; the only printed difference is that B2’s accommodation list includes an air-conditioner ledge and B1’s does not. Whether the two differ in layout, in facing, or only in mirroring is not published. PropertyGuru does not distinguish them at all — it publishes a single “Type B”.

Ask what separates B1 from B2

Type C1 — 344 sq ft, “Studio Office”

344 sq ft (32 m²) · developer label: Studio Office · accommodation: Office Suite, Bathroom · no bedroom printed

Developer says OFFICEPortal sells it as residentialLikely non-HDA

The developer’s own unit-plan page labels this type “Studio Office” and lists its rooms as “Office Suite, Bathroom”. It prints no bedroom. PropertyGuru record 20501 markets the same 344 sq ft as a residential “Studio — 1 Bedroom, 1 Bathroom” under “Type C & D”. Read that against the 490 non-HDA office suites in AmBank’s financing announcement and the developer’s label is the one consistent with the financing document. If this is one of the 490, the consequences are financial as well as legal: no Schedule H contract and no statutory late-delivery remedy, and commercial-title units typically attract commercial electricity and water tariffs and commercial assessment rates. Nobody publishes the utility and assessment basis for these units. Ask, in writing, which Act governs the sale and what the tariff basis will be.

Ask whether C1 is HDA or not

Type C2 — 344 sq ft, “Studio Office”

344 sq ft (32 m²) · developer label: Studio Office · accommodation: Office Suite, Bathroom, air-conditioner ledge

Developer says OFFICEPortal sells it as residentialLikely non-HDA

As C1, with an air-conditioner ledge added to the printed accommodation list. Same 344 sq ft, same “Studio Office” label, same absence of any printed bedroom. The portals do not publish C2 as a separate type at all — it is folded into “Type C & D”. Whether the ledge area sits inside or outside the stated 344 sq ft is not published.

Request the C2 plan

Type C3 — 344 sq ft, “Studio Office”

344 sq ft (32 m²) · developer label: Studio Office · accommodation: Office Suite, Bathroom, air-conditioner ledge

Developer says OFFICEThird identical-area variantLikely non-HDA

The third of four 344 sq ft types. Its printed accommodation is identical to C2’s. With no unit counts, no stack plan and no floor allocation published, what distinguishes C1, C2 and C3 from one another is not publicly discoverable — and since the portals publish three type codes where the developer publishes seven, there is no second source to check it against either.

Ask what separates C1, C2 and C3

Type D — 344 sq ft, “Studio Office”

344 sq ft (32 m²) · developer label: Studio Office · accommodation: Office Suite, Bathroom, air-conditioner ledge

Developer says OFFICEFourth of fourLikely non-HDA

The fourth 344 sq ft “Studio Office”. Taken together, C1, C2, C3 and D are four of the developer’s seven type codes, and every one of them is labelled an office suite by the developer and a residential studio by the portal selling it. That is the clearest single illustration on this page of why the HDA split at the top matters: the smallest and almost certainly the most numerous product in this tower is, on the developer’s own description, not a home.

Ask for the full type-by-type HDA schedule

No plan is attached to this row because it is a comparison of schedules, not a layout.

The portals’ three-type schedule, for comparison

Studio 344 sq ft, “1 bedroom, 1 bathroom” · 2-Bedroom 495 sq ft · Dual-Key 678 sq ft, “2 bedrooms”

3 types vs the developer’s 7Every disagreement is in this rowNot the developer’s wording

This is what PropertyGuru record 20501 publishes, and it is what most buyers will see first. It collapses B1 and B2 into “Type B” and C1, C2, C3 and D into “Type C & D”; it adds a bedroom to the four office types and a bedroom to Type B; and it adds the word “dual-key”, which the developer never uses. One agent listing on the same platform describes the 678 sq ft as a “2-Bedroom” with two bathrooms and no dual-key label at all. Where the developer’s page and the portal disagree, the developer’s page is the better source on what is being built — and AmBank’s breakdown is the better source on what it is legally.

Ask which schedule the gallery is selling from

No commercial floor plate or retail lot plan is published by any source.

The 3 retail lots

Built-up: not published by anyone · HDA status: not stated · level: not published

Excluded from the 759No area publishedNo level published

AmBank’s financing announcement records 3 retail lots alongside the 269 and the 490, and they are what makes the component total 762 against the marketed 759. No source publishes their built-up areas, their level, their tenure, or whether they are separately strata-titled. PropertyGuru record 20163 places “food court and retail spaces at the basement level”, which is the only level assignment anyone publishes for anything in this building and has no developer support. Because no retail built-up is published, the true minimum and maximum of this tower’s built-up schedule is unknown — the 344 to 678 sq ft range covers the residential and office suites only.

Ask about the retail lots

On the plan graphics above. They are the developer’s own unit-plan images, carried forward from the earlier version of this page, where each has been published under its type code on this site since August 2026. Their subject basis is that type code and nothing stronger: branniganz.com.my is a custom-built static site with no content-management endpoint, so no developer CMS title exists to confirm any of them, and I have not been able to re-verify each graphic against the developer’s current unit-plan page. Treat them as orientation only and read the stamped plan annexed to the sale and purchase agreement as the governing document. Not published by anyone, for any type: unit count per type, which type codes are the 269 HDA units, which floors or stacks each type occupies, stack orientation and facing, floor-to-ceiling height, whether the air-conditioner ledge area is inside or outside the stated built-up, car park allocation, maintenance fee and sinking fund rates per square foot, share units, and the built-up of the 3 retail lots. The square-metre figures on this page are the developer’s own printed values.

Gallery — and exactly how the subject of each image is sourced

The nine renders on this page come from the developer’s own site at branniganz.com.my and each was verified individually as reachable before use, against a deliberately bogus control URL that correctly returned a 404 — so these are real files, not false positives. The two construction photographs and the seven unit-plan graphics are the developer’s images as already published on the earlier version of this page on this site since August 2026, and their basis is set out in the floor-plan section’s fine print. A word on how confident I am. branniganz.com.my is not a WordPress site: it is custom-built and serves from a plain assets folder, so there is no media endpoint from which to confirm a content-management title, a mime type or pixel dimensions, and no subject on this page is CMS-confirmed. What the site does publish is a caption next to each gallery image in its HTML, and a caption is developer-published text — stronger than a file name. Every render subject here is therefore graded caption-published, and I have said so on each one. Treat that grading with one caveat the developer itself supplies: two of its own captions are crossed, with a file named AerialViewDay captioned “Façade Mid” and one named MidAerialView captioned “Aerial View”. No floor level is published for any image, and none is guessed at here. Further gallery files exist that I did not individually verify — Façade Top, Façade Mid, Façade Roof, Pavilion, Floating Walk, Entrance and second versions of the pool, lounge and co-working renders — and they are absent rather than used unchecked. The developer’s floor-plan graphic, its facilities map and its location map are not reproduced at all, for the same reason. All renders are artists’ impressions, subject to change and to the approval of the relevant authorities.

Location — every distance here is a portal’s, because the developer publishes none

The address both portals publish is Jalan Imbi, 55100 Kuala Lumpur. The developer publishes no site address anywhere on its own microsite — only a sales gallery address, and that gallery is in Bukit Kewangan, roughly 2 km from the Jalan Imbi site, so it is not on site. the developer’s location page contains no distance and no travel time in text at all: its location map exists only as a graphic. Every figure below therefore comes from a portal or an agent listing, each named. I have estimated none of them, and I have filled in none of the gaps.

The register — and the empty space where the filed statutory block should be

There is no filed advertisement-particulars block on this page, because none exists in public for this scheme. The table below is the statutory field list as it would be printed on a filing, with what each field actually contains in the public record beside it. Not one value in it is a filed value, and none of it should be read, quoted or relied on as one. What follows the table is the detail: how the filing was looked for, what the Housing Development Act split means for the 490, and exactly what to ask for at the gallery.

Read that row as a map of an absence, not as a register. Twelve of its twenty fields are not printed by anybody; the rest are marketing or news sources standing in for filed values and labelled as such. On most pages on this site this table is the spine of the page and carries a government document behind every cell. Here it is the clearest statement of the problem: a scheme is being advertised and sold without a publicly discoverable developer licence number or advertising and sale permit, and a buyer has no public document to check it against.

No figure in the table above is a filed statutory value. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. No statutory unit selling price minimum and maximum exists for this scheme in any public source, so there is nothing on this page against which any marketing figure could be tested — which is precisely why no price figure appears anywhere on this page.

Only 269 of 759 units are HDA housing — what the other 490 actually lose

AmBank Group’s announcement of 17 January 2024, repeated by Business Today and Malay Mail, states the composition as 269 serviced apartment units governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, 490 office suite units that are not, and 3 retail lots. What an HDA housing unit gets, and a non-HDA commercial unit does not. First, the contract: an HDA sale uses the statutory Schedule H sale and purchase agreement prescribed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations — a form the developer cannot rewrite in its own favour, with a prescribed staged payment schedule tied to certified construction progress. A non-HDA sale uses whatever contract the developer’s solicitors draft. Second, late delivery: Schedule H carries a statutory liquidated-damages formula payable automatically if vacant possession is late, calculated on the purchase price from the day it falls due. Outside the HDA there is no statutory formula at all — you get whatever remedy the contract gives you, which may be nothing. Third, your money: an HDA developer must operate a housing development account into which every purchaser’s progress payment is paid and from which withdrawals are restricted to that development’s own costs. Outside the HDA there is no such ring-fence. Fourth, the statutory defects liability period and the prescribed defect-rectification machinery, and the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims as a cheap forum for disputes — the Tribunal’s jurisdiction runs to housing accommodation under the Act. A commercial-unit buyer’s forum is the courts. And there is a running-cost consequence too. Commercial-title units typically attract commercial electricity and water tariffs and commercial assessment rates rather than domestic ones, and the two use classes in one tower may end up with different service charges or even separate management bodies. Nobody publishes the utility basis, the assessment basis, the maintenance rate, or whether the serviced apartments and the office suites will form one management corporation or two. Nothing published maps the split onto the units. No source states which type codes, which floors or which stacks are the 269. Both PropertyGuru records file the whole tower as a condominium, and the developer’s own unit-plan page labels four of its seven type codes “Studio Office” while the portal sells them as residential studios. So the only way to know what you are buying is to ask, and to get it in writing before you pay anything.

How the filing was looked for, and why there is no way in

Six routes were tried and all six closed. One: KPKT’s HIMS repository stores filed particulars at a path built from the developer’s licence serial, and that serial is embedded in the APDL number — so the APDL is the key to the document. Neither the licence number nor the APDL is printed anywhere public for this project: not on branniganz.com.my, not on either PropertyGuru record, not on iProperty, not on EdgeProp, and not in any news report. With no serial, there is no path to construct and nothing to walk outward from. Two: HIMS itself is a login-only portal for developers, lawyers and the housing department, with no public project or licence search. Three: TEDUH, the public housing-project search, is a JavaScript single-page application with a catch-all route — every URL, including its own API paths, returns the same empty shell. Four: the developer’s brochure PDF is reachable but image-only, with no extractable text, so if the statutory block is printed on its back page it cannot be read by machine. Five: EdgeProp’s new-launch records normally transcribe No. Lesen Pemaju even where the APDL is unpublished, and that is the route that has worked on other projects in this series — EdgeProp record 50959 does not carry one. Six: the GreenRE public project register loads its table client-side and returns an unpopulated template, so the green claim could not be checked either. One lead that is not a filing, and must never be presented as one. The filed advertisement brochure for a different EXSIM scheme — The Kingswoodz, HIMS reference 30741-1 — contains narrative pages that describe Branniganz, including Branniganz’s 495 and 678 sq ft built-ups, apparently through a template error in the developer’s own document production. It is a real government-held document, but it is the filing for a different licensed scheme. Its statutory block belongs to The Kingswoodz. Nothing in it is a Branniganz statutory particular, and this page does not borrow a single figure from it. What would close this. One number: the APDL. With it in hand the HIMS path resolves directly and this whole section can be replaced with filed values. Failing that, a human opening the brochure PDF at the gallery and reading its back page, or photographing the statutory particulars the law requires to be on display there.

Exactly what to ask for at the sales gallery, and what each answer is worth

Take this list. One: is this unit one of the 269 HDA serviced apartments or one of the 490 non-HDA office suites — in writing, naming the Act. Two: which form of sale and purchase agreement applies, and if it is not Schedule H, what the late-delivery remedy is and how it is calculated. Three: whether a housing development account exists for the HDA component and at which bank. Four: the developer’s licence number and its validity period — and check the validity covers the date you sign. Five: the advertising and sale permit (APDL) certificate on display, its number and its expiry; a developer may not advertise or sell without a current one. Six: the filed advertisement particulars page itself, which the law requires to be displayed — photograph it, and compare every figure on it against this page. Seven: the price list and the sale and purchase agreement together; the price list is where a real price comes from, and the agreement is where it becomes binding. Eight: the approving authority and the building plan approval number. Nine: the tenure from the title, with the lease expiry year if it is leasehold, and the restriction in interest. Ten: the land area, the lot or PT number, and the storey count — 50 or 51. Eleven: the car park allocation per unit type, in writing. Twelve: the facilities schedule as annexed to the agreement, with the level for each. Thirteen: the maintenance charge and sinking fund rate per square foot, and whether the office suites and the apartments pay the same. Fourteen: the assessment and utility tariff basis for the unit you are buying, domestic or commercial. Fifteen: whether the two use classes will form one management corporation or two, and whether they share lift cores, lobbies and facilities. If the gallery cannot produce the licence and the permit, that answer on its own tells you something.

Foreign buyers — the Kuala Lumpur threshold, and a wrinkle specific to this tower

This site is in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, where the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit consent required for the acquisition. For comparison, Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 2 sit at RM2,000,000, restricted to strata-titled property and gated landed strata, and Selangor Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — at RM1,000,000. Two cautions specific to this project. First, because no filed statutory selling price range exists and this page publishes no price, you cannot check from anything here whether a given unit clears the RM1,000,000 threshold — that has to come from the developer’s price list at the gallery. Second, and more important: the office suites are a different question from the apartments. Commercial property sits under a different consent and threshold regime from residential, and the restriction in interest on the title — which is where any foreign-ownership restriction would actually be recorded — is not published for this development at all. A foreign buyer should establish in writing, before paying anything, which component the unit is in, what consent is needed, and what threshold applies to it. State and federal policy at the time of purchase governs, and these thresholds change.

What this page does not publish, and why

No discount, rebate, nett price, promotional package, freebie, incentive, commission, Bumiputera discount percentage, leaseback or guaranteed-rental-return rate, or yield and ROI projection appears anywhere on this page, as a matter of standing policy, and none is available on request either. Beyond that standing rule, this page withholds something it would normally publish: any price at all. Here is the reasoning in full, so you can judge it. PropertyGuru runs two separate records for this one tower, and they carry two different starting prices differing by a six-figure amount, with the record holding more agent listings showing the lower minimum; their price-per-square-foot figures also disagree, one a single value and one a range, and they do not overlap consistently. There is no independent corroboration of either figure, because all three portal records belong to one publisher group — PropertyGuru Group owns iProperty Malaysia, and the iProperty page carries the same project id as the PropertyGuru record. And EdgeProp — the one property portal outside that group that carries a record for this tower — publishes no price for it at all: its price and price-per-square-foot fields are both empty, rendered by that platform as a zero. So the entire published price picture for this building comes from a single publisher, contradicting itself. The developer publishes no price anywhere on its own site. And there is no filed statutory minimum and maximum in existence to test any of them against — which on every other page on this site is exactly what makes a marketing figure checkable. Publishing one of these numbers would mean passing on an unverifiable claim about the largest financial decision most people make. Where a real price comes from. The developer’s own current price list, and the sale and purchase agreement, at the sales gallery — read alongside the statutory particulars that the law requires to be on display there, which is the document that makes the price list checkable. Ask for all three in the same visit. I will go and ask for them with you.

Not published by anyone — the full list

Statutory and legal: the registered scheme name as filed; the developer licence number and its validity; the APDL and its validity; the approving authority and the building plan approval number; the filed statutory unit selling price minimum and maximum; the filed built-up schedule; tenure confirmed from a title and the lease expiry year if leasehold; the lot or PT number, title number and land area; the restriction in interest; the encumbrance as a filed entry rather than a press release; which of the 759 units are the 269 HDA units, by type code, floor or stack; whether the 490 office suites are sold on a commercial agreement rather than Schedule H — never stated by anyone; whether a housing development account exists and at which bank; and the current 12-digit company registration number of Lembaran Beruntung Sdn. Bhd. Physical: land area, plot ratio and site plan orientation; total building height in metres; the storey count, which conflicts 50 against 51; car park bay count, bays per unit, which levels are parking, visitor bays and EV charging; unit count per layout type; the level-by-level facilities schedule in text; which levels are retail, which are office suites and which are serviced apartments; floor-to-ceiling height; whether any unit is dual-key in fact; the lift count and lift zoning, where one portal’s figure stands uncorroborated; the built-up of the 3 retail lots; whether the two use classes share lift cores, lobbies and facilities; whether the air-conditioner ledge area is inside or outside the stated built-up; and the orientation of each stack, which is what would determine whether any given unit actually sees Merdeka 118, TRX or KL Tower. Commercial and operational: the expected completion date as a filed tarikh dijangka siap; the maintenance fee and sinking fund rate per square foot, and whether the two use classes pay the same; the assessment and utility tariff basis, which matters more here than on a purely residential project; whether the apartments and the office suites will form one management body or two; the defects liability period; the construction progress percentage, where quarterly photographs exist with no percentage beside them; the main contractor and the architect; and the GreenRE rating and certification stage, and any QLASSIC target.

Questions buyers actually ask

Other Kuala Lumpur projects on this site

Published 5 October 2026 · Last verified 5 October 2026 · No KPKT filed advertisement particulars exist in any public source for this scheme, and no developer licence number or APDL is printed anywhere public. The Housing Development Act split of 269 / 490 / 3 retail is sourced from AmBank Group’s financing announcement of 17 January 2024. No price is published on this page. Marketing information, not an offer.