Broadleaf Residences @ HOMETREE — Kota Kemuning, Seksyen 31, Shah Alam, Daerah Klang, Selangor: KPKT licence 13053, 295 strata-titled landed homes across FIVE registrations, every one Siap Dengan CCC — and six of six completed phases delivered inside their ORIGINAL contractual date

Eight things about Broadleaf Residences that are filed, true, and published nowhere else

Each card is a finding from the public register or the filed advertisement documents, not a selling point. Four of the eight run in the developer’s favour and four run against its own paperwork. All eight are printed the same way.

The type schedule, from the FILED documents only — and the two filings disagree on the land figures

Everything in this section is transcribed from the two filed advertisement documents that carry a type schedule — 13053-4’s P45 filing (land ranges) and 13053-6’s brochure (single “approx” land figures, bed and bath counts and per-type unit counts). Both are filed documents, the built-ups agree exactly, and the land figures do not. Both are printed. Two warnings before you read a type letter. First, this schedule is the 2017-generation plan, not the registered mix: its 99 bungalows match the Bursa contract scope and the 2017 press, while the register carries 51. Second, the type letters are SHARED with Phase 1: Long Branch Residences prints the same five letters with the same five built-ups, inside a wider set that also runs to 7,063 sq ft. What separates the phases is the range, not the letter — Phase 2’s bungalows are the 4,942 – 6,081 sq ft subset. Never match a type letter across HOMETREE phases without checking the built-up range. Types D and E are absent from the Broadleaf set although Phase 1’s runs A to H. The gap is recorded and not interpolated.

Every built-up and land figure above is transcribed from a filed advertisement document, with the filing it came from named in the same line. Where the two filings disagree, both are printed and neither is averaged. No source publishes a floor plan, a site plan, a gross floor area, a plot ratio, a subsidiary-share percentage or a per-unit price for any Broadleaf type. Built-ups and land areas on a completed scheme must be confirmed against the actual strata plan and the title for the individual house, not against a brochure schedule printed for a plan that was afterwards changed.

Why there are no renders on this page

No images from the developer’s marketing are reproduced here. A render is drawn to sell. It is not something the developer is contractually bound to build, and there is nothing in it you can check against a document.

Ask for these three in writing instead: the approved building plan, the unit layout with its stated built-up area, and the specification schedule attached to the sale and purchase agreement. Those bind the developer. A render does not.

Kota Kemuning, Seksyen 31, Shah Alam, Daerah Klang — and why no distance appears on this page

The district question is settled from the filings, and the answer is not the one a nearby development’s page gives. HOMETREE is in Kota Kemuning, Seksyen 31, Shah Alam, Daerah Klang. The proof is the filed plan-approval prefix on both records that carry a statutory block — MBSA/BGN/BB/600-2(PB)/SEK.31/0201-2019 on 13053-4 and MBSA/BGN/BB/600-2(PB)/SEK.31/0037-2022 on 13053-5 — together with daerah: Klang on all seven register records, a Bursa announcement placing the works in “Shah Alam, Selangor”, and two press surfaces giving “Kota Kemuning, Shah Alam”. This is a DIFFERENT DISTRICT from twentyfive7, which is Telok Panglima Garang in Daerah Kuala Langat — a different council, a different Selangor foreign-buyer zone and about 7 km away. Not one distance, park, mall or school figure from that development, or from Bayu Timur in Seksyen 32, or from Casa D’Arcadia in Seksyen 35, appears anywhere on this page. Two cautions on the filings’ own wording: both brochures name the approving authority Majlis Perbandaran Shah Alam while printing an MBSA/ prefix, and MBSA has been Majlis BANDARAYA Shah Alam since 2000 — the prefix is the reliable field; and the register’s business-address daerah field reads Klang with a 40460 Shah Alam postcode, contradicting itself in the usual way. The project-field daerah is what was used.

Registered as Alam Kemuning, Kota Kemuning, Broad Leaf (Phase 2) and Broadleaf (Alam Kemuning) — KPKT projects 13053-1 to 13053-7

Printed as the register and the filed advertisement documents print it, including the parts that disagree with each other and the parts that are blank. Read on 13 October 2026 from the public KPKT TEDUH register records for developer 13053 and projects 13053-1 through 13053-7, and from the filed HIMS advertisement documents — pulled in BOTH path generations wherever both exist, and diffed. There is no developer statutory block to compare against, and the reason is itself a finding: the township domain hometree.com.my is printed inside the filed brochure, and its root serves one line of text and a short block of marketing prose with no licence number, no permit number, no price and no statutory panel — while /robots.txt, its REST route, its /broadleaf/ path and its www. form are all robots-disallowed to this tool, as is the corporate domain on both forms. So every statutory particular on this page comes from HIMS and TEDUH and nothing from the developer — which cuts both ways, and both halves are stated in the notes below.

Read 13 October 2026 from teduh.kpkt.gov.my (developer 13053; projects 13053-1 to 13053-7; 13053-8 returns a client error) and from the filed advertisement documents on hims.kpkt.gov.my — 13053-4 and 13053-5 for the statutory blocks, 13053-5 and 13053-7 in both path generations for the generation diff, and 13053-6 and 13053-7 for the township text, the security schedule and the type and lot schedules. Register percentages, permit statuses and register bands move. Re-check before you sign anything.

The price figures above are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price ranges and the public government registry bands, published here because they are a legally filed sale price range and a public record. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. And on 13053-4 specifically: its filed table is a BAKI UNIT remaining-stock table, so its band and the register’s band measure different things and the difference between them is not a change in price. The authoritative figure for any individual house is the price list and the sale and purchase agreement — and on a completed development, the actual transacted price for the specific house, which only a valuation or a title search will give you.

Scope: this page is Broadleaf Residences, and the five developments it is NOT

This page covers Broadleaf Residences — HOMETREE Phase 2, five register records 13053-2 to 13053-6, 295 houses — and nothing else. First, it is not Springwood Residences. 13053-7 is Phase 3, the only live phase on this licence, 144 registered houses of 220 on its own filed site plan, two-storey terraced and two-storey semi-detached rather than three-storey bungalows and semi-detached, with a terraced band starting at RM999,700 rather than a Broadleaf band starting at RM1,871,100, its own separate clubhouse and facility list, and the opposite foreign-buyer answer: all 72 of its registered terraced houses fail the RM2,000,000 floor outright. It has no filed statutory particulars block in either HIMS path form — no licence number, no permit, no authority, no plan reference, no tenure, no restriction, no chargee, no completion date and no price — so a Springwood buyer has the register and nothing else. If Louis builds a Springwood page it will be its own page, and none of Broadleaf’s figures will appear on it. Second, it is not Long Branch Residences. 13053-1 is Phase 1, 101 bungalows, CCC 1 July 2016, and it has never had a filed advertisement, so it cannot carry a page of its own; it appears here only as the completed first phase, with its register band and its CCC. Its type letters A to H overlap Broadleaf’s at identical built-ups, so a type letter alone does not identify a phase on this township. Third, it is not the commercial precinct. Pusat Komersial Alam Kemuning has no KPKT registration of any kind: no Schedule G or H, no Housing Development Act liquidated-damages formula, no housing development account, no statutory defect liability period, no Tribunal route and no filed advertisement at all. Its unit count rests on a 2017 press figure of 23 shophouses. The township’s HDA protections do not extend to those shops, and this page does not let them appear to. Fourth and fifth, it is not twentyfive7 and not any other nearby development. twentyfive7 is Gamuda Land (Kemuning) Sdn Bhd, developer code 19085, at Telok Panglima Garang in Daerah Kuala Langat — a different licensee, a different district, a different council and a different Selangor zone, about 7 km away. Kota Kemuning proper belongs to a third licensee again, with 44 register records carrying those words. Not one figure, distance, park, mall, school, award or green certification from twentyfive7, Bayu Timur or Casa D’Arcadia appears anywhere on this page, and all three have their own pages.

Why this page is tagged Subsales and Landed, and deliberately NOT New Launch

Taxonomy, stated rather than left to be guessed. This page is filed under Subsales and Landed, under Selangor and Kota Kemuning, and under the developer brand BCB Berhad — while the page body names the licensee precisely as BCB Development Sdn Bhd, because the taxonomy carries the group brand and the liability sits with the subsidiary. Subsales is right, and New Launch would be wrong: all five Broadleaf records read Siap Dengan CCC at 100.00%, the last CCC landed 21 August 2025, both portal records carry zero sale and zero rental listings, and every Broadleaf advertising and sales permit except 13053-6’s has lapsed. A buyer reaches these houses through the resale market, from an owner, not from a developer sales gallery — so there is no launch, no booking form, no developer price list in force and no sale and purchase agreement on the statutory Schedule H form to sign with a developer. The contract is an ordinary sub-sale. Landed is right even though the title is strata: all 540 houses on this licence are houses, filed Rumah Sesebuah and Rumah Berkembar, and condominium or serviced apartment would misdescribe them — while the fact that the title is strata title is stated throughout this page because it is unusual, because no marketing surface says it, and because it is what admits a foreign buyer. Commercial was considered and declined, and the reason is the point: the township’s commercial precinct carries no KPKT registration, no licence, no permit and no filed advertisement at all, so tagging a commercial component that no filing supports would overstate what is on offer. And New Launch was declined a second time on a separate ground: the one genuinely live phase on this licence is Springwood, which is not this page.

Foreign buyers: title, zone, price and consent — four separate questions, and four different answers

On title the answer here runs in the buyer’s favour, and that is unusual for a landed scheme. All seven records are filed Schedule H and the four permits that carry a tail all carry -(S), so these landed houses are on strata title, not individual title. Selangor permits foreign purchase of strata and landed-strata only, and standard individual-title landed is not permitted — the state guidance citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014, and IQI’s own land guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/, carry the same restriction. So where a freehold individual-title landed scheme bars a foreign buyer outright, these houses are of the one landed kind Selangor admits. And the gated-and-guarded condition attached to that allowance is MET on the developer’s own FILED security schedule — two main gates with guard posts, separate resident and visitor lanes, automatic barriers, high-definition CCTV, integrated vehicle and visitor access control, intercoms, house alarms, emergency buttons, CCTV-monitored perimeter fencing with video motion detection and fence sensors on a computerised alarm system, a control room and patrols. This is the first project in this series where that condition rests on a statutory filing rather than on a portal tag; three earlier pages failed the same test. Credit it. On the zone, a precision that matters: Daerah Klang is Selangor ZONE 1, floor RM2,000,000. Zone 2 (Kuala Selangor, Kuala Langat) carries the same RM2,000,000 by a different band, and Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor, Sabak Bernam) is RM1,000,000; Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory are RM1,000,000 with EPU consent. A nearby development’s page reaches the same number through Zone 2 because it is in Kuala Langat. The figure is the same, the reasoning is not, and the reasoning is not copied across — a client told “Zone 2” and then checking the circular for Daerah Klang will not find it there. PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so the three-source consensus is what is cited and a client should confirm with PTGS before committing. On price, per record and never estimated: 13053-2 113 of 113 clear (its semi-detached minimum is 1.04× the floor), -3 46 of 46, -5 42 of 42 and -6 28 of 28 — 229 of Broadleaf’s 295 clear the floor outright. 13053-4’s 66 STRADDLE it: its register minimum of RM1,871,100 is 93.6% of the floor, and how many of the 66 clear is UNDETERMINABLE because no per-unit price is filed anywhere. Across the whole licence: 330 clear, 138 straddle and are undeterminable, and Springwood’s 72 terraced houses FAIL outright, the dearest of them reaching 71.0% of the floor. A client told “HOMETREE is foreigner-eligible” on Broadleaf’s numbers will be misled about Springwood: always answer per record and per type. And on consent, a separate condition sits on top of all of that: a Sekatan Kepentingan is filed requiring State Authority consent for any transfer, lease or charge. It applies regardless of price and regardless of the strata finding — and the two filed versions of it contradict each other, which is the subject of the next note.

The restriction clause, both forms, quoted and not paraphrased

A statutory restriction on this licence is printed two mutually contradictory ways, and a buyer is entitled to see both. 13053-4 files: “Tanah yang diberi milik ini tidak boleh dipindah milik,dipajak atau digadai melainkan dengan kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri” — the land may not be transferred, leased or charged without the consent of the State Authority. 13053-5, in BOTH of its filed path generations, files: “Tanah boleh dipindah milik,dipajak atau digadai melainkan dengan kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri” — the word tidak is absent, and its absence inverts the clause into nonsense: the land MAY be dealt with UNLESS consent is given. This page relies on the 13053-4 wording, for two stated reasons: it is the internally coherent one, and consent-on-transfer is what Jadual H strata practice implies in any event. The 13053-5 wording is recorded as a defect in the filing and is not adopted — it was read twice, verbatim, in both path forms, and it is identical in both. What a client should do with this is not choose between two brochures: obtain a title search on the specific house, because the restriction that binds is the one endorsed on the title, not the one printed in an advertisement. And for 13053-1, -2, -3, -6 and -7 — 404 of the 540 houses on this licence — no restriction is filed at all, so whether one exists is simply UNKNOWN and is printed here as an explicit unknown rather than read across from a sibling record.

Density: one denominator used, with its provenance, and four refused

6.02 units per acre — 295 houses on 49 acres. The denominator is filed, not borrowed: the line : 49 ekar sits in the same unlabelled header block of 13053-4’s filed advertisement that carries the 295 / 244 / 51 unit totals, and it is corroborated by one independent publisher — The Edge group, at “on 49 acres” in its 2017 launch report and “49.27 acres of leasehold land” on its project record. On 49.27 acres the figure is 5.99 per acre; on the 2017 plan of 265 units it would have been 5.41. A net-to-gross check was run rather than simply accepting the acreage: taking the filing’s own per-type land ranges at their midpoints, the bungalow plots come to about 569,600 sq ft and the semi-detached plots at the press range’s midpoint to about 910,500 sq ft, a total of about 1,480,000 sq ft = 34.0 acres = 69% of 49 acres — which is entirely plausible on a gated landed scheme carrying internal roads, a clubhouse, a guardhouse and drainage reserve. The midpoint assumption is labelled: the check is a sanity test, not a measurement. At 6.02 units per acre this is the lowest density recorded anywhere in this series, which is also the one place where a developer superlative in a statutory file — “privasi dan ekskusif”, the host’s own misspelling reproduced only inside the quotation marks — is supported by its own filed arithmetic. Four candidate denominators were tested and REFUSED. (1) The township’s 150 acres, filed in 13053-6’s brochure: 540 ÷ 150 gives a bogus 3.6 per acre, wrong twice over, because the acreage carries five phases including a commercial precinct while the unit count excludes every commercial unit and the 76 unregistered terraced lots. (2) The township’s 151 acres, filed in 13053-7’s brochure as “151 EKAR BANDAR BERSEPADU” — the developer’s own two filings give the township as 150 and 151 acres; both are carried here with their sources and neither is divided by. (3) The 49 acres applied to anything other than Broadleaf Phase 2, which is what it is the parcel for. (4) Any figure derived from the register’s keluasan field, which on this licence is a BUILT-UP, not a land area — in square metres on 13053-1 and in square feet while still printing the unit mps on -2, -3 and -4. Read 4,654 mps as square metres and you overstate a semi-detached house by 10.8 times. Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED as a statutory field in any filing on this licence. No GFA and no plot ratio is published by any source, so the plot-ratio cross-check is unavailable — and Phase 1’s density cannot be computed at all, because no parcel area is published for it by anybody. This page prints none for Phase 1, and prints Springwood’s only with the caveat that its 20-acre site-plan field could not be confirmed on a second read.

Why this page carries no project photograph, no render and no floor plan

There is no image anywhere on this page, and that is a decision with four independent reasons behind it, not an oversight. Every host route was tried. The project’s own township domain — printed inside the filed statutory brochure — serves one line of text and a short block of marketing prose at its root, with no link tags, no image sources, no media-library route, no phase name, no acreage and no statutory text; and /robots.txt, its REST route, its /broadleaf/ path and its www. form are all robots-disallowed to this tool, so neither a sub-page read nor the media-library route is available. The corporate domain and the investor-relations host are robots-disallowed on every form. A fourth domain that looks like the developer’s is an unrelated commercial link directory and was refused outright. One portal’s own content delivery network is reachable and is the only project imagery anywhere — and all of it is refused, on four grounds that each stand alone. (1) The transform that serves those files bakes in that publisher’s own watermark, which its request payload names explicitly. Publishing a competitor publisher’s watermarked asset on Louis’s site is not acceptable on any grade. (2) They are not the developer’s host: there is no content-management title, no caption, no date field, so the best possible grade is alt-text-inferred, the weakest this series uses — and two of the four reachable files have no alt text at all. (3) The adjacency risk is measured, not hypothetical: 13053-6, Broadleaf’s last parcel, and 13053-7, Springwood’s, sit about 16 metres apart on the register’s own filed coordinates — so a file captioned for one product could depict the other, and the two products are a three-storey bungalow and a two-storey terraced house. (4) Dating is impossible and here it is decisive: Broadleaf Phase 2 was re-planned between the 2017 contract award and registration — 48 bungalow plots became semi-detached and the total rose from 265 to 295 — so any undated pre-registration render may depict a scheme that was never built, and the only date available in a portal filename is an upload timestamp, not the age of the artwork. So: a thin honest page beats a captioned guess. What would change this, in order of likelihood: a browser pass on the township domain, which is blocked only by robots and almost certainly holds the renders, the site plan, the floor plans and any statutory panel; a browser pass on the corporate domain for the group awards page; and Louis’s own project folder, which on a completed development is also the likeliest source of genuine photographs rather than renders. Until one of those produces a verified file with a stated subject, this page shows no image and says why.

Why this page publishes no distance to anything

Not one distance appears on this page, because not one source publishes one — and that is the finding, not an omission. Five portal records, two press articles, one press release and both filed brochures were read. Every one of them names places. Not one of them gives a distance to any of them. Ten sources, zero distances: the cleanest negative of its kind in this series. The places named are listed in full in the location section above, with the publisher that names each of them. The only rail station any source names is Putra Heights LRT, carried by three portal records across two publishers — and it is not turned into a figure here. One proximity claim can be tested and it survives: The Star group calls the Klang River “adjacent”, and the register’s own coordinates for the Broadleaf parcels sit on the Klang–Shah Alam flood plain beside the river’s course. Consistent — so it is repeated as that publisher’s word, with the coordinates shown, and still not as a distance. A cross-township sanity frame was run and then deliberately not used: a developer distance table exists for Seksyen 32 Kota Kemuning, the adjoining section on the same council and the same district, and it is the right order of magnitude; a table for Telok Panglima Garang in Daerah Kuala Langat is not. Both belong to other developments, so neither figure is borrowed here — not one kilometre of it. Estimating a distance, or lifting one from a neighbour’s brochure, would be inventing a figure and attributing it to this development. HOMETREE’s own developer publishes none, and this page says so instead.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Twenty-four things a buyer would reasonably ask about Broadleaf Residences, and no source answers them. 1. No filed advertisement has EVER existed for 13053-1, 13053-2 or 13053-3 — 260 of the 540 licensed houses. For those, tenure, lease expiry, building-plan reference, restriction in interest, chargee, parking, built-up schedule and statutory price band are all unavailable, and everything this page says about them comes from the register alone or is labelled as analogy. 2. The only phase that is selling, Springwood 13053-7, has no statutory block in EITHER HIMS path form — and both path forms serve what reads as identical content, so this is a clean null diff, not a failed check. 3. No lot number, no PT number, no mukim and no street address is filed anywhere on this licence, and the Bursa route — the usual way to recover a parcel identifier — gives none either. The parcel has no recoverable identifier. 4. No Keluasan Tanah in any filing, so Phase 1’s and the township’s densities cannot be computed and Springwood’s rests on a garbled site-plan field. 5. No gross floor area and no plot ratio from any source, so the plot-ratio cross-check is unavailable. 6. The licensee’s shareholding percentage within its listed parent is unobtainable — both the corporate and the investor-relations hosts are robots-blocked. 7. The listed parent’s own company registration number is printed by no reachable source. Only the licensee’s, 493302-U, is recoverable, and only from the filings. 8. No landowner, vendor or joint-venture partner is named for any phase, so the JV question is UNANSWERED rather than answered negatively — there is no counterparty to test. 9. No contractor for Springwood, hence no commencement date, no programme length and no float test on the live phase. 10. No vacant-possession date is recorded for -1, -2 or -3 (vp: “-”), so for 260 houses the CCC is the only delivery evidence. 11. The Broadleaf sub-phase labels implied by Fasa 2D — a 2A, 2B and 2C set — are named by no document, so which of -2, -3 and -4 was which release is unknown, and this page attempts no sub-phase label it cannot source. 12. What became of the 48 bungalow plots that the 2017 plan had and the register does not, and whether any purchaser was affected, is answered by no source. 13. The 76 Springwood terraced lots on the filed site plan have no registration, so no permit, no filed price, no contract schedule and no completion date exists for them. 14. The commercial precinct has no KPKT record of any kind; its unit count rests on a 2017 press figure, and its HDA status, contract schedule, title type and completion date are all unstated. 15. The fifth HOMETREE phase is unnamed and nothing is filed for it. 16. Whether Long Branch (Phase 1) residents may use Broadleaf’s clubhouse — the filing grants it to “penduduk Fasa 2” and no document addresses Phase 1. 17. No distance to anything, from anybody — not to Putra Heights LRT, not to any highway, not to any school or mall. 18. No parking count for 498 of the 540 houses. 19. No facilities schedule, no Sinki Dapur count and no electrical or sanitary schedule in any filing on this licence. 20. No award and no QLASSIC workmanship score for any phase — and the group awards page could not be read, so “none” here means “none found”, not “none exists”. 21. No updated gross development value since a superseded 2017 figure of RM650 million, and no township GDV at all. That 2017 figure sits BELOW the sum of the filed minima across -2 to -6, which this page computes at RM685,188,600 — and the cause is visible: the GDV was announced against 265 units and the scheme was registered with 295. It is carried only with that caveat attached. 22. Service charge, sinking fund and subsidiary-share percentage: NOT PUBLISHED by any source — which on a Jadual H strata-titled landed scheme with a clubhouse is a material gap, because a management corporation and a sinking fund are implied by the title type. 23. 13053-3, -5 and -6 return an EMPTY permit history, so unpermitted intervals were NOT CHECKABLE on those records — recorded as unchecked, not as clean. 24. No project imagery of publishable grade exists on any reachable host. Louis will ask the developer for every one of these in writing. What comes back will be added here with its date.

Superlatives this page quotes and does not adopt — and the one it credits

The developer’s own words, attributed, with what supports them and what does not. Unusually, these superlatives sit inside a statutory file rather than on a website — and a claim in a statutory document is still a claim. “serba mewah”, “kemewahan dari dimensi semulajadi”, “sanktuari sebenar”, “dalam kelasnya tersendiri” — marketing adjectives with no testable content, carried here only as quotation. “privasi dan ekskusif” is TESTABLE, and it survives: 6.02 units per acre on a filed 49 acres is the lowest density this series has recorded. This is a rare case where a developer’s superlative is supported by its own filed arithmetic, and it is credited as such — with the acreage’s provenance named in the same breath. (The misspelling is the filing’s own and is reproduced only inside the quotation marks.) “bandar bersepadu”, an integrated township — PARTLY supported: there are five phases, one of them commercial, and a filed clubhouse — but the commercial precinct on which the “integrated” claim partly rests has no KPKT registration at all. “HOMETREE merupakan kawasan kediaman yang selamat” — SUPPORTED, and strongly: by the filed security schedule, which is the strongest-grade support for a security claim this series has found. “Gated and guarded”, carried by press and by a portal — SUPPORTED by the filing. “24-hour Security” as a structured portal tag — NOT SUPPORTED for Broadleaf: the filing describes patrols and a control room without stating they are round-the-clock. The Springwood filing does say 24-hour, and it is not back-dated to Broadleaf here. “Aeroyoga Room” in one portal’s facility list — UNSUPPORTED, and contradicted by that same page’s own description, which says “yoga room”. “150 ekar” against “151 EKAR” — self-contradictory by one acre, in the developer’s own two filings. Both carried, neither divided by. And the claim nobody makes, which is worth a line: no source publishes a density figure or a “low density” claim for this development at all. The 6.02 figure on this page is this page’s own arithmetic on a filed acreage, and it is labelled as such everywhere it appears. Two credentials that belong elsewhere and are kept out: the township’s only green row is the COMMERCIAL precinct’s provisional Bronze on a Non-Residential Building tool, which is not a credential for any house; and the group’s one published award is a park award, given in Singapore in 2017, for a Johor project on a different licence entirely — and the licensee’s own director is quoted celebrating it, which is exactly how such a borrow happens. Neither appears anywhere on this page as a credential for Broadleaf.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion information and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source, whatever its provenance — and those five terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. One further term is named here for completeness and appears exactly once, also here: Bumiputera. On this licence the honest statement about it is that NEITHER filed advertisement prints such an allocation field at all — not blank, not withheld, simply not present in the document — so there is no value to publish and none is implied. What that means in practice. The filed statutory Unit Selling Price ranges and the public registry price bands ARE published on this page, because they are a legally filed sale price range and a public government record — and each is labelled as such wherever it appears, always with not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. What is withheld, and what this page prints instead. First, a 2017 pre-launch bungalow entry figure sits BELOW every filed bungalow minimum in the Phase 2 records — which are RM3,077,000 on 13053-2 and RM3,256,000 on 13053-6. The figure itself, and the size of the gap, appear nowhere on this page, because printing a gap beside a filed minimum reconstructs the withheld number. This page records only that the contradiction exists and how many INDEPENDENT publishers carry it — which is the sharper finding — and the answer is ONE, The Edge group, in a nine-year-old launch report. Its stated average per-square-foot figure would multiply against the filed built-up to a figure also below the filed minimum, so that average is withheld on the same ground. Second, a portal’s resale asking range opens BELOW every filed statutory minimum on this licence, under 13053-4’s RM1,871,100, which is itself the lowest filed minimum in Phase 2. The figure is withheld — and two things must be said about it instead of the number. It is carried by ONE publisher; and it is a SECONDARY-MARKET ASKING range on a completed development, which is a different animal from a developer entry price — a resale asking price may legitimately sit below an original filed minimum, and on an eleven-year-old township it would be surprising if none did. This series has not had to draw that distinction before; it is drawn here, and the figure is withheld anyway. For the publisher count to be honest, the collapsing rule this page uses is stated: The Edge group’s domains and its content interface count as ONE; PropertyGuru and iProperty count as ONE; The Star group’s two domains count as ONE; Property Insight is a fourth. Third, the direction that runs the honest way is reported too, because it deserves naming as much as the other: the 2017 press semi-detached entry figure sits ABOVE 13053-4’s filed minimum — the normal, honest case — and Springwood’s portal figures are register-clean, its two different “starting from” numbers matching the terraced minimum and the semi-detached minimum EXACTLY. That page is not self-contradictory; it is two correct figures on one page. Fourth, the test that ran backwards is reported negative rather than left hanging: Springwood’s terraced band opening at RM999,700 against a township running to RM4,548,000 is the usual affordable-allocation signature, and it tests NEGATIVE — there is no affordable type-code suffix pair anywhere on this licence, no duplicated built-up at two prices, no state affordable-housing flag on any record, and no source of any kind mentions affordable housing at HOMETREE. So the RM999,700 entry is simply the cheapest two-storey terraced house on a township whose other phases are bungalows, and the 1,540 sq ft lot size is consistent with that. It is not explained away, and it is not dressed up. Where you get a real figure: on the primary market, the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery; on this development, which is a resale market, the actual transacted price for the specific house — which means a valuation, a title search and an agent who will show you the filed schedule line by line. Ask Louis.

How this page was built, and its limits

Everything above is either traced to a named published source or marked as not published. The spine is the public KPKT TEDUH register records for developer 13053 and projects 13053-1 through 13053-7, read 13 October 2026, together with the filed HIMS advertisement documents — pulled in both path generations wherever both exist, and diffed. Six limits are worth stating plainly. First, three of the seven records have no filed advertisement at all, so 260 of 540 houses sit behind a blank, and nothing about them is inferred without being labelled. Second, the generation diff ran on only one record, 13053-5 — and it came back ONE FIELD apart, the chargee. Every price figure, date, plan reference, consultant and the tenure are identical across its two generations; this series’ normal result is sixteen fields apart, so a one-field diff is reported as what it is, a good result. 13053-7’s two path forms are a clean null diff — no generation to diff, rather than a check that failed. Third, the green-certification register truncates on three of its four tiers, so where this page says there is no further entry it means no entry in the reachable portion, never a clean negative. The one genuinely clean negative is the top tier, which closed completely with no entry for this licensee — and the Bronze certification-entry list spans exactly the window in which Broadleaf’s last two CCCs and Springwood’s launch fall, with no match, which makes that negative materially stronger than a truncation caveat alone. Fourth, the national green-building directory of the other certification body returns server errors throughout, so its silence is INCONCLUSIVE and is never read as a negative — and no source makes any claim under it for any HOMETREE phase, so there is no claim to test. Fifth, both of the developer’s own hosts are robots-blocked to this tool, so a statutory panel, a group awards page and an image library may all exist behind them: that is recorded as UNCHECKED, not as clean. It cuts both ways, and both halves are worth saying. In the developer’s favour: there is no stale developer statutory panel to contradict the filing, no below-floor entry price on its own website and no permit-validity-in-the-licence-field error on a live sales page — the whole family of developer-panel errors this series keeps finding cannot occur here, because the panel does not exist. Against it: a buyer who goes to the developer’s own website for the statutory particulars the Housing Development Act requires to be advertised finds none, and the only place they exist is a government file server with no public search. Sixth, this is a completed development, so the figures that matter most to a buyer today — the actual transacted price, the actual strata plan, the actual title endorsement and the actual service charge — are not in any filing and cannot be. They come from a valuation, a title search and the management corporation. Published 13 October 2026. Re-verify every figure against the filed advertisement particulars and the title before you commit.

Broadleaf Residences @ HOMETREE — the questions a buyer actually asks

Other Selangor pages built the same way — and the nearby developments this page keeps separate

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 13053 and the project records 13053-1 through 13053-7; the filed HIMS advertisement documents for 13053-4, 13053-5, 13053-6 and 13053-7, pulled in both path generations wherever both exist and diffed; the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers plus one certification-entry list; a Bursa Malaysia contract announcement of 11 May 2017; and the named press, portal, listed-company and foreign-ownership sources cited above, including IQI’s own land guide. No figure on this page comes from any other development, any other licensee or any other phase of this township than the five records named. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the filed advertisement particulars, the title and a current valuation before you commit.