Casa D’Arcadia @ Setia Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, Shah Alam — 40 Schedule G semi-detached houses, filed under no name of their own
It is not a condominium and not a strata scheme. The KPKT register files it as Rumah Berkembar — 28 three-storey and 12 two-storey semi-detached houses, 40 in all — on the Schedule G contract, which sells the house together with its land. And the name on the hoarding appears in no filed document at all: the register’s project-name field carries the township, Setia Alam Impian, and the filed brochure’s own header carries the precinct, PRESINT SENI SINEMATIK / Fasa A6-06. Search the register for 9829-33, not for the name.
Replies personally, usually within the hour · Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, Registered Estate Agency
Casa D’Arcadia at a glance — what the filing actually says
Every figure below is from a named published source: the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure at files/9829/9829-33/, the public KPKT TEDUH register record 9829-33, or the developer’s own statutory panel. Where two of them disagree, both are printed and neither is quietly reconciled.
- Registered scheme name
- None. The register’s
projek.namais “Setia Alam Impian” — the townshipThe filed brochure’s header is a third name: “KEDIAMAN RUMAH BERKEMBAR / EDISI EKSKLUSIF / DI PRESINT SENI SINEMATIK”, phase line “Fasa A6-06” - KPKT project code
- 9829-33This is the string to search at
teduh.kpkt.gov.my. Searching for “Casa D’Arcadia” returns nothing - Built form, as filed
- Rumah Berkembar — semi-detached houses28 units at 3 storeys and 12 units at 2 storeys, per the register’s two component rows and the filed brochure’s own unit line
- Contract schedule
- Schedule G — sale together with the landRegister
pjb.jenis: Jadual G,tempohAsal: 24 Bulan. The filed brochure names no schedule at all - Licensed developer
- I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd, 199601021892 (394244-M)A member of S P Setia. The register prints it
I & P ALAM IMPIAN SDN.BHD., developer code 9829, status Active, 34 registered projects, no offence flag - Developer licence
- 9829/08-2028/1050(A)Valid 26/08/2023 – 25/08/2028. As at 9 October 2026, about 22½ months to run (our arithmetic)
- APDL
- 9829-33/11-2027/0983(A)-(L)Valid 24/11/2025 – 23/11/2027, so current, with about 13½ months to run (ours). The filed brochure prints a literal
XXXX-XX/XX-XXXX/XXXX(X)-(X)placeholder; the developer’s own surfaces print the(N)form the register marks “not latest”. The-(L)tail is the landed marker - Filed Unit Selling Price
- RM2,536,444 – RM4,158,667Filed statutory band from the legally filed advertisement particulars, identical to the sen in the public register. Two-storey RM2,536,444–RM2,885,334; three-storey RM3,743,111–RM4,158,667. Not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer
- Units under this licence
- 40 of 172 marketed homes — 23%A further 78 Phase-2 semi-detached units (mybina, status “Planning – Conceptual”) and 54 “villas” / “bungalows” have no filing of any kind
- Land per unit
- 50′ × 70′ on all four types3,500 sq ft of land per house (ours). The phase parcel area is NOT PRINTED anywhere and the register has no land-area field
- Built-up area
- Three different schedules — see the layouts sectionFiled A 4,270 / B 4,322 / C 3,298 / D 3,255 sq ft; marketed A 4,280 / B 4,393 / C 3,347 / D 3,345 sq ft; the register’s own
311–408 mpsagrees with the marketing, not with the filing - Land tenure
- Freehold (Pegangan Tanah: Kekal)Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada (no restriction in interest) and Bebanan Tanah: Tiada (no encumbrance). No chargee is named by any surface
- Approving authority
- Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA)Settled from the filed Pihak Berkuasa Memberi Kelulusan and from the plan reference
MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/189. Not MPK, not MBPJ - District
- Daerah Klang — and the same record says PetalingThe register’s project field says Klang (as do all four sibling phases); the licensee’s business-address field in the same record says Petaling. Both are reported here and neither is resolved
- First SPA, and vacant possession
- 20 December 2025 → 20 December 2027Register
tarikhPjbPertamaplus the 24-month Schedule G period. The filed brochure’s expected completion is Dis 2027 — the two agree, which is unusual - Approved extension of time
- None —
pindaanTempohSerahKosong: “Tidak”tempohTambahanDiluluskan: “-”. All four sibling phases under this licence read the same. Reported as a fact about this project, not as a rule - Construction progress
- 21.07% (three-storey) · 22.50% (two-storey)Register, read 9 October 2026. No filed CCC and no filed VP (
“-”on both). Consistent with the developer’s own piling photograph of 2 September 2026 - Register coordinates
- 3.019122 N, 101.505595 EFiled GPS on record 9829-33. Mukim and lot / PT number are NOT PUBLISHED on any reachable surface
- Distances published
- Exactly one: 8 km to Shah Alam City CentreThe developer’s own figure. The filed brochure’s map names KTM Shah Alam and KTM Padang Jawa and gives a distance to neither. Nobody publishes any other distance
- Green rating and awards
- None claimed, none on the registerNo entry for this project, for Fasa A6-06, for Setia Alam Impian or for I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd in the reachable portion of the GreenRE Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze registers. No award. The two 2025 LakePoint Park landscape awards belong to the township’s public park
Explore related topics
The statutory terms this page leans on, the Selangor and Shah Alam archives, and the other Shah Alam project pages Louis keeps alongside this one.
Seven things about Casa D’Arcadia that no brochure and no portal will tell you
This page exists for the awkward facts. Each card is sourced, and each one changes what a buyer should ask at the sales gallery.
The name is not in any filing, so the name is the wrong thing to search
A direct string search of the filed HIMS brochure for Casa, Arcadia, D’Arcadia and Casa D’Arcadia returns nothing. The register’s project-name field carries the township (Setia Alam Impian); the brochure’s header carries the precinct (Presint Seni Sinematik, Fasa A6-06). The only practical handle a buyer has is the project code 9829-33. Print it, save it, search it.
Landed, not strata — and that changes six things that cost money
The register files pjb.jenis: Jadual G, the schedule for a house sold together with its land, on a 24-month delivery clock rather than 36. Different deposit, different progress-payment ladder, different defect liability period mechanics, and no statutory management corporation, service charge or sinking fund. It also means the buyer is buying land — which is exactly what makes the foreign-buyer answer complicated.
Two register records carry one phase, and adding them gives 80 units
9829-32 and 9829-33 both print Fasa A6-06, 40 units, the same 28/12 storey split, the same 311–408 mps built-up summary and the same price band to the sen — and KPKT HIMS serves the same brochure under both serial folders. -32 has permitNo: “-”, no first SPA and 0.00% progress. It is a dormant, permit-less twin. The live record is -33. The walk’s 404 point is 9829-35, and the register’s own bilanganProjek: 34 corroborates it.
The licence covers 40 of 172 marketed homes
The enclave is sold as 172 homes = 118 semi-detached + 54 villas. Only the 40-unit Fasa A6-06 has a licence, a permit, a filed price and a filed building type. The other 78 semi-detached units sit in mybina as “Phase 2” with status Planning – Conceptual, and the 54 villas (The Edge calls them bungalows) have no filed building type, no filed price, no APDL and no stated contract schedule. A masterplan is not a licence.
The announced GDV is below the filed minima of the 40 registered units
Four sources print a gross development value of RM121.5 million for “the 51-acre project … 172 units”. But the 40 registered units at their filed statutory minima already come to 12 × RM2,536,444 + 28 × RM3,743,111 = RM135,244,436 — about RM13.7 million above the stated GDV, on 23% of the homes. At filed minima, 172 units would exceed RM436 million. The GDV is a stale-generation signal, and this page does not repeat it as an enclave figure.
The developer’s own filed advertisement understates its own houses on all four types
Filed A 4,270 / B 4,322 / C 3,298 / D 3,255 sq ft, against the developer’s own e-brochure and page at 4,280 / 4,393 / 3,347 / 3,345 sq ft — low every time, by up to 90 sq ft on Type D. And the register’s own unitSummary.keluasan of 311–408 mps converts to about 3,348–4,391 sq ft, which agrees with the marketing and not with the filing. All three figures are printed here; none is reconciled. Check which one your own SPA schedule carries.
Price clears the foreign-buyer floor — and title is probably still the blocker
Every one of the 40 units clears Selangor’s RM2,000,000 minimum purchase price, by 1.27× to 2.08× (ours, on the filed band). That is the first clean pass on price among the Selangor projects on this site. But Schedule G means sale with the land, and two independent sources plus IQI’s own land guide state that Selangor permits foreign buyers strata and landed-strata titles only. No filing states the title type. Price clears; title is the binding question; PTG Selangor must confirm it.
Project DNA — the filed spine, the enclave, and the township that is not the enclave
Three tiers run through everything published about Casa D’Arcadia, and they are routinely blurred: what is filed for the 40-unit Fasa A6-06; what the developer markets for the 172-unit enclave; and what belongs to the whole 1,235-acre Setia AlamImpian township and is shared with thousands of other homes. This section keeps them apart.
What exists, tier by tier — and who says so
This is a landed scheme, so there are no facility levels to assign and the usual by-level question does not apply. Nothing below is presented as the project’s own unless the developer says it is.
Tier 1 — per-house specification
- Autogate, doorbell point, CCTV point, alarm system
- Booster pump · internal telecommunication cabling
- Fencing and turfing
- Rainwater harvesting system · solar panel
- “Isolator point for EV charging” — the developer’s own filed wording. The Edge and StarProperty upgrade this to “EV charging ports”; an agent page notes it may not be a full charger. The filed wording is what is published here
- Private home lift — Types A and B only (the three-storey houses)
- Smart lock, “green switch” and a “Box 366” parcel concierge — e-brochure only
- Construction: reinforced concrete frame, cement-sand brick walls with reinforced concrete party walls, clay-tile and flat roof, timber flooring in master and most bedrooms, family area and staircase, tiles elsewhere
- Light and power points differ by type: A and B 69 light / 54 power; C and D 55 light / 47 power
Tier 2 — the enclave’s own landscape
- Yacht Plaza
- Step Terrace
- Lighthouse View Tower
- Tree Sculpture Terrace
- Palm Terrace Garden
- Creek Garden
- Gateway Terrace
- “Landscape, green and recreational area 45%” of the 51-acre site — a percentage, not an area. It is not 23 acres of greenery and not 28 acres of developable land
- The developer publishes a graphic site plan, not a text schedule, so no feature is assigned to a location and nothing is marked as a commitment rather than space reserved
- Nine landscape renders were refused for this page: their filenames map equally well onto LakePoint Park, which is township public open space and not this project’s land
Tier 3 — TOWNSHIP amenity, NOT the project’s own
- LakePoint Club: four badminton courts, futsal court, Olympic-size infinity pool, wading pool, sauna, dance studio, games room, gym, grand ballroom for up to 1,000 people
- LakePoint Park: a 14-acre lake and a 17-acre park — the 31-acre central town park, with weekend musical fountain, jogging track, skate park, children’s playground, “Expression Bridge” and open amphitheatre
- LakePoint Gallerie (the sales gallery), LakePoint Central, LakePoint Event Hall, Prisma 8 Commercial Centre
- Eaton International School (PropertyGuru, 2022)
- No source states that Casa D’Arcadia residents have any contractual right of access to any of it. An agent page says enclave maintenance is “to be determined by the residents’ association” — which is consistent with Schedule G, where no statutory strata management body exists
Not published, therefore not on this page
- A registered scheme name. The register carries the township name; the filing carries the precinct name
- The mukim, and the lot / PT number. Nowhere. mybina leaves the Phase-2 address and lot blank
- Whether the title is individual or landed strata. No filing says. This is the single most consequential gap on the page, because it decides foreign eligibility
- The phase parcel area. Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED and the register has no land-area field, so a density for the registered 40-unit phase cannot be computed
- Car parking. No count on any surface. The filing shows anjung kereta (car porch) with no number. “Not printed” asserts neither “none” nor “some”
- A chargee. Bebanan Tanah: Tiada on all surfaces and no bank named — consistent, but it also means a buyer cannot see which bank, if any, holds the land
- The HDA housing-development account number and its bank
- Per-type bedroom and bathroom counts in any filed document. The filing’s floor-plan labels run to Bilik Tidur 4 and Bilik Mandi 4 but are not mapped to type codes
- Anything at all about the 54 villas / bungalows: no type code, land size, built-up, bedroom count, price, filed building type, contract schedule, APDL or completion date
- Anything about the 78 Phase-2 semi-detached units beyond a unit count, a 3,345–4,393 sq ft range and the status Planning – Conceptual
- The main contractor, architect, C&S engineer, M&E engineer and QS. mybina confirms each exists and locks every name behind a subscription. No Bursa or klsescreener contract announcement exists for this project
- A distance to anything except Shah Alam City Centre — including every rail station, school, hospital, mall and highway interchange
- Maintenance or sinking-fund charges. None on any surface, which is consistent with Schedule G
- Whether any landscape feature is a commitment or space only
- The shareholding percentage in I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd. S P Setia’s own annual-report archive on its site stops at 2019, so the corporate-structure chart that would settle it is not reachable
- A GreenRE or GBI rating, provisional or final, and any award
The dates, and which one governs
tarikhPjbPertamaThe four filed types — and the three built-up schedules that disagree
Four types, A to D, all on a 50′ × 70′ lot (3,500 sq ft of land, ours). A and B are the three-storey houses, 28 units between them; C and D are the two-storey houses, 12 units between them. The storey assignment comes from the filing’s own plan headings and reconciles exactly to the filed 28 / 12 split. Only two of the four floor plans are published: the developer’s floor-plan slider labels Type C and carries a Type A plan, while Types B and D exist in the filing and their plans were not individually verifiable — so no plan image is shown for them, and none is substituted.
Type A — three-storey semi-detached
Marketing is 10 sq ft above the filed figure. The e-brochure adds a water feature between living and dining, a balcony and a study area; bedrooms and bathrooms are the marketed counts, because the filing maps none of its floor-plan labels to a type code. The register prints a single phase-wide summary of 5 bedrooms / 6 bathrooms, which is not a per-type schedule. Three-storey units fall in the filed band RM3,743,111 – RM4,158,667. Image subject inferred from the developer’s filename — the floor-plan slider’s own label for this plate was not captured.
Ask Louis for the Type A plan with its fixture scheduleType B — three-storey semi-detached
The widest gap on the project: marketing is 71 sq ft above the filed figure, and the register’s own 408 mps agrees with the marketing. The e-brochure puts the water feature at the car porch and adds a balcony and a study area. Three-storey units fall in the filed band RM3,743,111 – RM4,158,667. An agent page lists availability for Types A and B only, and none for C or D, while describing the phase as 40 units — that is its inconsistency, not the filing’s.
Ask Louis to request the Type B plan from the developer
Type C — two-storey semi-detached
Marketing is 49 sq ft above the filed figure. Ground-floor water feature; no home lift on the two-storey types. Two-storey units fall in the filed band RM2,536,444 – RM2,885,334, and the advertorial says the two-storey units have drawn the strongest response. Image subject caption-published — the developer’s floor-plan slider prints the label “Type C”, which makes this the only floor plan on the project whose subject is confirmed rather than inferred.
Ask Louis for the Type C plan and the two-storey price listType D — two-storey semi-detached
The largest proportional gap: marketing is 90 sq ft above the filed figure, about 2.7% on the filed area (ours). Ground-floor water feature; no home lift. Two-storey units fall in the filed band RM2,536,444 – RM2,885,334. This is the inverse of the usual trap — here the developer’s own filed advertisement understates its own product, rather than the marketing inflating it. Ask which figure the SPA’s own schedule carries before signing.
Ask Louis to request the Type D plan from the developerBuilt-up areas are stated three ways on purpose. The filed column is the statutory schedule in the KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure (Keluasan Binaan, raw strings 4,270 / 4,322 / 3,298 / 3,255 kps). The marketed column is the developer’s own e-brochure and project page. The register column is KPKT’s unitSummary.keluasan of 311–408 mps, converted at 1 m² = 10.7639 ft² — the developer published no square-metre figure, so every square-foot conversion from it is ours. The filed schedule is the odd one out and it is low on all four types. Nothing is reconciled here, because reconciling it would hide the finding.
Gallery — with the grade of every caption stated
Nine developer assets were verified individually against the developer’s CDN before use, with a double negative control run on two file extensions first. Nine landscape renders were refused and are not on this page: their filenames map onto the e-brochure’s named features (Yacht Plaza, Creek Garden, Lighthouse View Tower) and equally well onto LakePoint Park’s published features, and LakePoint Park is township public open space, not this project’s land. Three banner crops of assets already shown were also refused. No stock photograph has been substituted for anything, and no caption asserts a subject that could not be sourced.
Ask Louis for the full developer image set and the 3D tour linkLocation — Seksyen 35, Setia Alam Impian, Shah Alam
Exactly one distance is published by anybody: 8 km to Shah Alam City Centre. That is the developer’s own figure, on its Casa D’Arcadia page and on its township page. Nobody — not the developer, not The Edge, not StarProperty, not EdgeProp, not PropertyGuru — publishes a distance or a travel time to anything else, including every rail station. Nothing on this page has been estimated to fill that gap.
The map pin is placed on the township at the register’s own filed coordinates. It is not a surveyed boundary of the 40-unit Fasa A6-06 parcel, because no parcel boundary and no parcel area is published by anyone.
The one published distance
- Shah Alam City Centre — 8 km. Developer’s Casa D’Arcadia page (“Situated just 8km away from the Shah Alam City Centre”), developer’s township page, and an agent page repeating it unattributed
- PropertyGuru’s township review of 19 February 2022 gives 8 km, a “10-minute drive” — a township figure, and the only travel-time figure that exists anywhere
- That is the complete list.
Rail — named, never measured
- The filed brochure’s own map names Stesen Komuter Shah Alam and Stesen Komuter Padang Jawa and gives a distance to neither
- No source publishes a distance or a travel time to any station, and no source says which of the two is nearer
- No MRT and no LRT station is named by any source. This is not a transit-oriented development and nobody claims it is
Highways — two developer surfaces, two different lists
- Developer’s project page: LKSA (Lebuhraya Kemuning–Shah Alam), KESAS, Federal Highway, ELITE
- Developer’s own advertorial: LKSA, KESAS, WCE (West Coast Expressway)
- Neither list is a superset of the other, and no distance to any interchange is published
- The filed brochure’s map additionally names NKVE, GCE, SKVE, PLUS North–South, Middle Ring Road, Inner Ring Road and the Sri Muda Toll Plaza — again with no distances
Named on the filed map, with no distance to any of them
- I-City, Taman Sentosa, Taman Sri Muda, Kota Kemuning, Uptown Shah Alam, Bandar Botanic
- Econsave, MydinMart Shah Alam, Mydin Giant Hypermarket, AEON Big, Lotus Shah Alam
- Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kolej Akasia UiTM, several SK primary schools
- Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Mosque, Taman Tasik Shah Alam, Jubli Perak, Selangor Roundabout
- Salam Medical Centre, KPJ Selangor Specialist, De Palma Hotel, Concorde Hotel
- KLIA and Subang Airport
- PropertyGuru adds NSK Trade City, SACC Mall, Columbia Asia Bukit Rimau, Avisena Specialist and Kota Permai Golf & Country Club — also with no distances
Local authority and district
- SETTLED: Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA). Stated as Pihak Berkuasa Memberi Kelulusan in the filed brochure and encoded in the plan reference
MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/189. So it is MBSA, not MPK and not MBPJ - Section: Seksyen 35, from the developer’s own address block and from PropertyGuru
- CONTESTED: the district. The register’s project field says Daerah Klang, and so do all four sibling phases 9829-31, -32, -33 and -34. The same register record’s licensee business-address field says Petaling. Both are reported here and neither is resolved. It changes nothing material: Zone 1 of the Selangor foreign-ownership scheme contains both districts
- NOT PUBLISHED: the mukim, the lot / PT number and the land title reference. mybina leaves the Phase-2 address and lot blank
Both Selangor registries were inert
ehartanah.lphs.gov.myignores the query and returns its default “Projek hartanah terkini” listing. Its only keyword hit is a decoy under a different licensee. Inconclusive, never a negative — eHartanah covers affordable schemes, so a RM2.5–4.2 million semi-D is not expected therekuotalphs.selangor.gov.myreturns a 500 server error on the project pathlphs.selangor.gov.myhas a broken TLS certificate and was not fought- An inert registry is never a negative finding. It is recorded as inert, in those words
Density, and the three denominator traps that are live on this project. The enclave figure is 172 homes ÷ 51 acres = 3.37 homes per acre, and the developer does that sum itself in its own advertorial, so “low density” here is the developer’s own arithmetic rather than a borrowed one. Label the acreage honestly: 51 acres is a marketing figure, printed in the e-brochure and the advertorial and repeated by an agent page — not three independent sources, and not filed: the filing prints no land area and the register has no land-area field. The registered 40-unit phase’s own density cannot be computed, and this page does not compute it. Three traps are refused by name. One: “landscape, green and recreational area 45%” printed beside the 51 acres is a percentage, not an area. Two: LakePoint Park’s 31 acres is township public open space, neither inside the 51 acres nor to be subtracted from it. Three: the township’s 1,235 acres and 12,476 planned units give about 10.1 units per acre, which is wrong for this enclave by a factor of three. And an enclave-level density describes a development that is 77% unregistered and unbuilt.
Filed statutory particulars — KPKT register 9829-33, licence 9829, Fasa A6-06
There is no registered scheme name for this development, so this table is keyed to the project code. Every cell is from the public KPKT TEDUH register record 9829-33, the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure at files/9829/9829-33/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf, or the developer’s own statutory panel — and where those three disagree, the disagreement is stated in the notes below rather than smoothed over.
| Project code | Registered name | Licensed developer | Developer licence | APDL | Permit validity | Approving authority | Building plan ref | Units | Contract schedule | Delivery period | Filed Unit Selling Price | Land tenure | Construction progress | Filed CCC / VP | Vacant possession per SPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9829-33 the live record. 9829-32 is a dormant permit-less twin carrying the same phase | Setia Alam Impian the township name, in the project-name field. “Casa D’Arcadia” appears in no filing | I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd 199601021892 (394244-M) a member of S P Setia · developer code 9829, status Active, 34 projects, no offence flag | 9829/08-2028/1050(A) 26/08/2023 – 25/08/2028 | 9829-33/11-2027/0983(A)-(L) register value. The developer prints (N), which the register marks “not latest”. The filed brochure prints a literal XXXX placeholder | 24/11/2025 – 23/11/2027 CURRENT as at 9 October 2026, about 13½ months to run (ours) | Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam MBSA, as filed | MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/189 identical on the filed brochure and the developer’s panel | 40 28 units at 3 storeys, 12 units at 2 storeys, all Rumah Berkembar | Jadual G sale together with the land. Not printed in the filed brochure at all — this comes only from the register | 24 BulanpindaanTempohSerahKosong: “Tidak” · no approved extension. tempohTambahanDiluluskan: “-” | RM2,536,444 – RM4,158,667 2-storey RM2,536,444–RM2,885,334 (12 units) · 3-storey RM3,743,111–RM4,158,667 (28 units). Filed band and register band agree to the sen | Freehold (Kekal) Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada · Bebanan Tanah: Tiada · no chargee named anywhere | 21.07% (3-storey) 22.50% (2-storey) register, read 9 October 2026 | “-” / “-” neither a certificate of completion and compliance nor a vacant possession date is on file | 20 December 2027 first SPA 20 December 2025 + 24 months. This is the date that governs, and only for that purchaser — each buyer’s own 24 months runs from their own SPA |
Read 9 October 2026. The filed brochure’s Tarikh Dijangka Siap is Dis 2027 and the register’s SPA-derived date is 20 December 2027: the two statutory sources agree, which is unusual and worth saying. Dates in circulation that are not this project’s: 2036 is the township’s completion across 1,235 acres, printed by the advertorial, PropertyGuru and EdgeProp — do not attach it; and “show units ready September 2026” is a sales-gallery milestone, not completion. Filed particulars change: verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my under 9829-33 before you rely on anything here.
Identity was confirmed four independent ways before any figure above was recorded, and not one of them is the name. One: the licensee and licence serial — the developer’s own project page and its own e-brochure both print I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd 199601021892 (394244-M) and licence 9829/08-2028/1050(A), and the permit’s phase suffix -33 maps straight onto register record 9829-33. Two: the phase code A6-06, printed at the head of the filed brochure and in the developer’s own site-progress caption. Three: the building-plan reference MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/189, identical on the filed brochure and the developer’s statutory panel. Four: a price band identical to the sen across the filing, the register and the e-brochure. Decoys checked and excluded: Casablanca, phase A6-03 of this same township (64 double-storey clusters, completed September 2023); Taman Arcadia Impian, a Malay Reserve double-storey terrace scheme by a different licensee in Daerah Klang; and Casa Embun, Casa Boulevard Sdn Bhd and Casa Inspirasi Sdn Bhd, each a different company or project. None of them is on this page.
Two register records, one phase — and why adding them is wrong
The live record is 9829-33. 9829-32 carries the same Fasa A6-06 header, the same 40 units, the same 28 / 12 storey split, the same 311–408 mps built-up summary and the same price band to the sen — and KPKT HIMS serves the same brochure document under both serial folders. The difference is that 9829-32 has permitNo: “-” with null permit dates, no first SPA and 0.00% progress, while 9829-33 carries the live permit, the 20 December 2025 first SPA and the 21–22% progress. Anyone who adds the two rows double-counts this project to 80 units. The register walk ran 9829-31 through 9829-35: -31 is a different phase (70 units, clusters and semi-Ds, 87.5–88.5% built, VP 15 July 2027), -34 is a different phase again (146 double-storey terraces, first SPA 9 May 2026), and -35 is a 404 — which the register’s own pemaju.bilanganProjek: 34 corroborates exactly.
The licence covers 40 of 172 — what that means for a buyer being shown a masterplan
The enclave is marketed as 172 homes: 118 semi-detached plus 54 villas, by the e-brochure, the developer’s page, The Edge on two surfaces, EdgeProp, StarProperty and an agent page. Only the 40-unit Fasa A6-06 is registered. A further 78 semi-detached units appear in mybina as “Casa D’Arcadia @ Alam Impian – Semi Detached Houses (Phase 2)”, 78 units, 3,345–4,393 sq ft, two and three storeys, status Planning – Conceptual; 40 + 78 = 118, which reconciles exactly to the marketed semi-detached count. The remaining 54 “villas” — which The Edge’s own two news surfaces call bungalows, so one publisher says both — have no type code, no land size, no built-up, no bedroom count, no filed price, no filed building type, no contract schedule, no APDL and no completion date. Phase numbering is incoherent across sources: the e-brochure’s site plan labels the villas as “Phase 2 and 3” while mybina’s Phase 2 is the 78 semi-detached units. Both cannot be Phase 2. In plain terms: a buyer looking at the villas on the masterplan is looking at something with no filing of any kind, and the protections of the HDA 1966 — the licence, the permit, the statutory contract, the housing development account — attach only to the 40.
Delivery, and the extension field — stated as a value, not as a rule
The register prints pjb.pindaanTempohSerahKosong: “Tidak” and pjb.tempohTambahanDiluluskan: “-”. There is no approved extension of time on this project. All four sibling phases under licence 9829 read the same. That is reported here as a fact about this project and nothing more: the tempting hypothesis that Schedule G landed phases do not get extensions while Schedule H strata towers do was raised and refuted the same day by licence 9351, which carries five Ya values on Jadual G records and a Tidak on a Jadual H record. So no rule is offered here. What is worth putting plainly is the timing: the developer’s own site photograph of 2 September 2026 is captioned “Piling work and structure wall in progress”, and the register’s 21.07% / 22.50% read on 9 October 2026 is consistent with it. From piling in September 2026 to vacant possession on 20 December 2027 is about 15 months for a two- to three-storey semi-detached house. With no extension on file, each purchaser’s Schedule G clock runs 24 months from their own SPA date and the HDA 1966 liquidated-damages mechanic is live against it. The dates and the progress are stated; no forecast is offered. One figure is refused: an agent page claims construction was “approximately 35% as of September 2026”, which contradicts both the register a month later and the developer’s own piling caption of that same month.
Foreign buyers — the price clears, and the title is the binding question
Selangor Zone 1 applies a minimum purchase price of RM2,000,000 per unit, and Zone 1 contains both Klang and Petaling, so the unresolved district above is immaterial to this answer. Every one of the 40 units clears it. On the filed band: the two-storey floor of RM2,536,444 is 1.27× the threshold, the three-storey floor of RM3,743,111 is 1.87×, and the filed ceiling of RM4,158,667 is 2.08× (all three ours, on the filed figures). That is the first clean pass on price among the Selangor projects on this site. But the register files this project Jadual G — sale together with the land — and Selangor’s published zone rules restrict foreign buyers to strata and landed-strata titles. propcashflow.my, citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014, states that foreigners are “restricted to strata and landed strata only” and that standard individual-title landed is not permitted, in Zones 1, 2 and 3 alike. iproperty.com.my states the same for Zone 1 and adds that meeting the price threshold does not guarantee approval because State Authority consent is still required. And IQI’s own land guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/ carries the restriction too — worth saying, because that is Louis’s own company getting it right. Three cautions on the evidence, all of them real: no filing states the title type at all (the filing gives Pegangan Tanah: Kekal and Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada and is silent on strata, while the Schedule G filing and an agent page’s “freehold, individual title” both point to individual title); propcashflow.my contradicts itself across two of its own pages on title type and on zone mapping; and PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so the restriction is cited as the published consensus of independent sources and not as a filed fact. The honest answer, in one line: price clears comfortably, title is the binding question, and a client must confirm it with PTG Selangor and with the developer in writing before proceeding.
The announced GDV cannot be reconciled with the filed minima — show the arithmetic
Four sources print a gross development value of RM121.5 million, and the advertorial attaches it to the whole enclave: “With a gross development value (GDV) of RM121.5 million, the 51-acre project will comprise 172 units.” Both numbers below are publishable — one is an announced figure, the other is a sum of filed statutory minima — so here is the arithmetic in full. The 40 registered units at their filed statutory minima come to 12 × RM2,536,444 = RM30,437,328 plus 28 × RM3,743,111 = RM104,807,108, a total of RM135,244,436. That is about RM13.7 million above the announced enclave GDV — on 23% of the homes. At filed minima, 172 units would exceed RM436 million. So RM121.5 million is at best a Phase-1 figure, it sits below even Phase 1’s filed floor, and it cannot be the enclave GDV. Read together with the circulating price band described in the disclosure below, it points to a pre-filing or superseded price generation still in circulation. This page publishes the filed statutory band, publishes the arithmetic, and does not repeat the GDV as an enclave figure.
Green certification and awards — nothing, stated precisely
No green certification is claimed by anybody, and none is on the register. All four GreenRE rating tiers were read separately on 9 October 2026. There is no entry for Casa D’Arcadia, for Fasa A6-06, for Setia Alam Impian or for I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd in the Platinum register, which runs to 95 rows and ends cleanly, so that is a clean negative; and no entry in the reachable portion of the Gold, Silver and Bronze registers, each of which truncates mid-row, so those three are not clean negatives and are recorded in exactly those words. Note that I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd appears in no tier at all while fourteen other S P Setia group licensees do: the group certifies elsewhere and has not certified here. greenbuildingindex.org’s certified-buildings directory returns a 404, which is inconclusive and never a negative. Nineteen keyword decoys were checked and refused, including Casa Embun, Casa Boulevard Sdn Bhd, Casa Inspirasi Sdn Bhd and Taman Arcadia Impian, plus Setia Eco Park, Setia Federal Hill, Residensi Setia Alam, two Shah Alam industrial rows and a Vietnam project. One is worth a line of its own: S P Setia’s own awards page still lists its group headquarters as a current “GreenRE Rating 2017 Platinum (Non-Residential)” while the GreenRE register marks that certification EXPIRED (24/08/2017, under a different licensee, Bandar Setia Alam Sdn Bhd). On awards: Casa D’Arcadia has none. The developer’s awards page runs to several hundred entries and neither “Casa D’Arcadia” nor “I&P” appears on it. Two entries name this township and both belong to the township’s public park — the Edge–ILAM Malaysia Sustainable Landscape Award 2025 (Landscape Planning) and the Malaysia Landscape Architecture Awards MLAA15 2025 (Developer Category), both for “LakePoint Park, Setia AlamImpian”, the 31-acre public park with the lake, musical fountain and amphitheatre. It is not inside the 51 acres, it is not this project’s land, and it must not migrate onto this page. The advertorial does place that award next to Casa D’Arcadia’s copy, which is exactly how borrowing happens. One genuinely creditable thing: neither the filed brochure nor the e-brochure nor the project page makes any certification claim at all — there is no logo, no rating and no “aligned with” wording to untangle.
What this page does not publish, and why
Louis’s standing instruction is absolute, and it is the reason this page reads the way it does. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive and no commission figure from any IQI or developer material is published here, in any language, ever. Four specific consequences on this project. One: the filed advertisement carries a Bumiputera discount field. Its existence is a fact about the filing and is stated; its value is withheld. Two: a price band whose minimum sits below the filed statutory minimum of RM2,536,444 and whose maximum sits below the filed statutory maximum is in circulation — labelled “selling prices are from” on one surface and “indicative prices” on another. Those figures are not on this page. What is recorded is that the discrepancy exists and how far it carries: across ONE publisher only — The Edge Communications, on three of its own surfaces, since theedgemalaysia.com and edgeprop.my are the same publisher and not two. That count matters, and it is different from the sibling Shah Alam project, where several publishers carried it. Three: a separate, differently-numbered set of per-type “from” figures on an agent page sits below the register’s own three-storey minimum of RM3,743,111; it is a different set, counted separately and not treated as corroboration, and its own figures and its own psf divisions are withheld too. Four: StarProperty publishes no price at all on this project, which is worth crediting. What is published here is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band of RM2,536,444 to RM4,158,667, taken from the legally filed advertisement particulars and identical to the sen in the public KPKT register — that exact agreement is itself a finding. Note also the RM857,777 dead band between the two-storey ceiling of RM2,885,334 and the three-storey floor of RM3,743,111: no unit in this phase is priced between them. The filed band is marketing information. It is not a price list, it is not a quotation and it is not an offer. The only price that binds anyone is the one in the official price list and in the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery, and Louis will walk you through both.
Schedule G against Schedule H — six differences that cost or protect money
Almost every project page on this site is a Schedule H strata scheme. Casa D’Arcadia is filed Schedule G, and the two statutory contracts are genuinely different documents. This matters here more than usual, because under Schedule G the buyer is buying land — and that is precisely what drives the foreign-buyer problem above.
What is actually sold
Schedule G: the house together with its own land title. Schedule H: a parcel in a subdivided building, with a share of common property, on a strata title. Here the register files pjb.jenis: Jadual G on a 50′ × 70′ lot, so the land comes with the house.
The delivery clock
Schedule G: 24 months from the SPA. Schedule H: 36 months. The register files tempohAsal: 24 Bulan here, with no approved extension. Twelve fewer months of waiting, and twelve fewer months in which a delay can accumulate.
The progress-payment ladder
The two schedules pay the developer on different stages in a different order, because one builds a house on a lot and the other builds a tower. Schedule H also retains a slice of the price against defects. Ask for the payment schedule in your own agreement and read it against the construction stage the site is actually at — which, on 9 October 2026, the register puts at 21–22%.
Late delivery
Liquidated damages run at 10% per annum of the purchase price under both schedules, but they are computed from a different date, because the delivery period is different. Here that date is 20 December 2027 for the first purchaser — and for every other buyer it is 24 months from their own SPA, not from anyone else’s.
Defects, and who fixes them
Both schedules carry a defect liability period running from vacant possession. What differs is everything around it: under Schedule H a management corporation, a service charge and a sinking fund are mandatory under the Strata Management Act. Under Schedule G none of them is statutory — and here an agent page says enclave maintenance is “to be determined by the residents’ association”. No maintenance or sinking-fund figure is published by anyone.
Foreign eligibility — and this is the sting
Strata under Schedule H is the easier category for a foreign buyer in Selangor. Landed under Schedule G is the harder one, because the published state rules permit strata and landed-strata titles only. So the same contract that gives a buyer their own land title is the thing that creates the question. No filing states whether this scheme is individual title or landed strata, and PTG Selangor must answer it.
The licensed developer, and who actually gets credited
The licensee is I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd, company number 199601021892 (394244-M) — printed exactly that way on the filed HIMS brochure, on the developer’s project page and in the e-brochure, each adding “ahli kumpulan S P Setia” / “a member of S P Setia”. The KPKT register prints it I & P ALAM IMPIAN SDN.BHD., developer code 9829, status Active, 34 registered projects, and mempunyaiKesalahan: null — no offence flag, which is not something every developer in this series can say.
This is not a single-project SPV, and that is unusual. The licensee is a township-level operating company incorporated in 1996 (the 1996… prefix of its registration number), carrying 34 registered phases of Setia AlamImpian under one licence — the opposite of the single-purpose-vehicle pattern most projects on this site turn out to have. It predates S P Setia’s involvement by two decades: the township was launched in November 2006 under I&P Group Sdn Bhd.
Who gets credited as “the developer” depends entirely on which surface you read. The filed HIMS brochure, the e-brochure, the developer’s own statutory panel and the KPKT register all name I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd. EdgeProp, The Edge Malaysia’s news article, The Edge’s advertorial, StarProperty and Berita Harian’s headline all credit “S P Setia” — the listed parent, not the licensee. spsetia.com carries the S P Setia brand throughout. PropertyGuru splits the difference with “I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd (a member of S P Setia Bhd)” and adds that the township “was launched by I&P Group Sdn Bhd, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of S P Setia Berhad”. Wikipedia names S P Setia as developer while recording that the township was launched by I&P Group in November 2006. mybina locks the Phase-2 developer name behind a subscription. The name in the term on this site is the brand, S P Setia. The name on the licence is in the body of this page, because that is the company a buyer contracts with.
The group structure, with what each source will actually support. S P Setia Berhad agreed in June 2017 to acquire I&P Group Sdn Bhd from Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) for RM3.65 billion, reported at the time as 39% below I&P’s revalued net asset value against an independent valuation of RM7.4 billion market value and RM6 billion fair value (EdgeProp, The Edge, NST). PNB is also S P Setia’s own parent, so the 2017 deal moved I&P between two PNB-controlled vehicles; no reachable source gives PNB’s percentage in S P Setia. What is NOT PUBLISHED is the shareholding percentage in I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd itself, and whether I&P Group became wholly owned: the acquisition coverage does not say, PropertyGuru is the only source that asserts it, and S P Setia’s own annual-report archive on its own site stops at 2019 — a media query for its annual reports returns 2008 to 2017 plus the 2019 integrated report, with no 2018 and nothing after 2019 — so the corporate-structure chart that would settle the percentage is not reachable. Record it as: a subsidiary within the I&P Group, which S P Setia acquired in 2017, exact shareholding not published. No joint venture and no partner is named for Casa D’Arcadia by any source, no landowner other than the licensee is named, and there is no chargee.
What the developer itself says, and whether it survives. Razly Mohammad Rus, Executive Vice-President of S P Setia Bhd, is quoted saying “We feel this is the right time to introduce this product to the market” (The Edge Malaysia, 26 November 2025) and describing “which will comprise sizeable units of 50 ft by 70 ft two-storey and three-storey semi-detached units” (StarProperty, 28 November 2025). Of the superlatives in circulation, two survive and three do not. “Low density” SURVIVES, arithmetically and on the developer’s own figures: 172 homes across 51 acres is 3.37 homes per acre, and the advertorial does that sum itself. “Sizeable units” SURVIVES: a 50′ × 70′ lot is 3,500 sq ft of land, with filed built-ups of 3,255 to 4,322 sq ft. “Premium” and “the upper tier of the Klang Valley landed residential market” have NO PRIMARY SUPPORT — no comparison set, no price data, no methodology. “Relatively limited supply” has NO PRIMARY SUPPORT — no supply figure is given. And “EV charging ports” is OVERSTATED by The Edge and StarProperty: the developer’s own filed wording is “isolator point for EV charging”, which is what this page prints. The advertorial’s quotations themselves must be handled carefully — the fetched text truncates at 125 characters, so each is partial and should be verified against the original before being repeated as a quotation.
Developer contact as printed on its own statutory panel: LakePoint Gallerie, No. 1 Jalan Panglima Hitam 35/26, Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, 40470 Shah Alam, Selangor, telephone 03-5162 7600. The register’s licensee business-address field prints the same address but ends it “40470, Petaling, Selangor”, while the licensee’s registered address in the same record is S P Setia Berhad Corporate HQ, Setia Alam, Klang, Selangor. The filed advertisement carries the National Housing Department’s approval line, “THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY NATIONAL HOUSING DEPARTMENT”. Louis Koh is an independent registered estate agent, not the developer, and does not speak for it — anything in this section is a reading of published documents, and the developer’s own written answer is what settles any of it.
Casa D’Arcadia — the questions a buyer actually asks
Is Casa D’Arcadia a condominium?
jenis: Rumah Berkembar — semi-detached, or twin, houses — across two component rows of 28 units at 3 storeys and 12 units at 2 storeys, 40 in total. The filed brochure’s own phase line reads “Fasa A6-06 (Rumah berkembar dua tingkat dan tiga tingkat)” and its unit line reads “40 unit Rumah Berkembar (28 unit : 3 tingkat, 12 unit : 2 tingkat)”. The developer’s own panel says “40 Semi-Detached Homes (12 units 2-Storey & 28 units 3-Storey)”. And the contract schedule is Jadual G, the statutory form for a house sold together with its land. Marketing and the filing agree on the built form here, which is not always the case. This page is tagged landed and deliberately not tagged as a condominium or serviced apartment, because tagging a Schedule G semi-detached scheme as strata would repeat the exact confusion the page exists to clear up.Why can I not find “Casa D’Arcadia” in the KPKT register?
9829-33, not for the name. This is the single most practically useful sentence on this page. A direct string search of the filed HIMS brochure for Casa, Arcadia, D’Arcadia and Casa D’Arcadia returns nothing: the only Alam Impian strings in the document are the developer’s company name, its address, its e-mail and the URL www.spsetia.com/alam-impian. The register’s projek.nama is “Setia Alam Impian” — the township. The filed brochure’s header is a third name again: “KEDIAMAN RUMAH BERKEMBAR / EDISI EKSKLUSIF / DI PRESINT SENI SINEMATIK”, with the phase line “Fasa A6-06”. So the development has a marketing name, a precinct name and a township name, and no registered name of its own. The route in: go to teduh.kpkt.gov.my, choose projek swasta, and enter 9829-33. Developer code 9829, licence 9829/08-2028/1050(A), permit 9829-33/11-2027/0983(A)-(L). The -(L) tail on the permit is the landed marker; strata schemes in this series carry -(S).What actually changes, between Schedule G and Schedule H?
tempohAsal: 24 Bulan here, with no approved extension. Progress payments: a different ladder in a different order, because one builds a house on a lot and the other builds a tower, and Schedule H retains a slice against defects. Late delivery: liquidated damages run at 10% per annum of the purchase price under both, but computed from a different date — here 20 December 2027 for the first purchaser, and 24 months from their own SPA for everyone else. Running cost: Schedule H makes a management corporation, a service charge and a sinking fund mandatory under the Strata Management Act; Schedule G makes none of them statutory, and here an agent page says enclave maintenance is “to be determined by the residents’ association” — no figure is published by anybody. Foreign eligibility: strata under H is the easier category in Selangor; landed under G is the harder one. Defect liability runs from vacant possession under both. And the thing that matters most here: under Schedule G the land comes with the house — which is exactly what creates the foreign-buyer question.Why do two register records show the same 40 units?
9829-33. 9829-32 carries the same Fasa A6-06 header, the same 40 units, the same 28 / 12 storey split, the same 311–408 mps built-up summary and the same price band to the sen, and KPKT HIMS serves the same brochure document under both serial folders. But 9829-32 has permitNo: “-” with null permit dates, no first SPA and 0.00% progress — a dormant, permit-less twin. 9829-33 has the live permit, the 20 December 2025 first SPA and the 21.07% / 22.50% progress. Anyone who adds the two rows double-counts this project to 80 units. The register walk also found 9829-31 (a different phase: 70 units of clusters and semi-Ds, 87.5–88.5% built, VP 15 July 2027), 9829-34 (a different phase again: 146 double-storey terraces, first SPA 9 May 2026, 16.23% built) and 9829-35 as the 404 end point — which the register’s own pemaju.bilanganProjek: 34 corroborates exactly.How many of the 172 marketed homes are actually licensed?
Can a foreigner buy at Casa D’Arcadia?
propcashflow.my, citing Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014, states that foreign buyers are restricted to strata and landed strata only and that standard individual-title landed is not permitted, in all three zones. iproperty.com.my says the same for Zone 1 and adds that meeting the threshold does not guarantee approval, because State Authority consent is still required. IQI’s own land guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/ carries the restriction as well. Three honest cautions. No filing states the title type at all — the filing gives Pegangan Tanah: Kekal and Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada and is silent on strata, while the Schedule G filing and an agent page’s “freehold, individual title” both point to individual title. propcashflow.my contradicts itself across two of its own pages on title type and on zone mapping. And PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so the restriction is the published consensus of independent sources rather than a filed fact. So: price clears, title is the question, and a client must confirm with PTG Selangor and with the developer in writing before proceeding. For reference, Kuala Lumpur’s comparable floor is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent, and Selangor Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam) is RM1,000,000. Thresholds and policies change — verify before advising anyone.What is the price, and why will you not print a “from” figure?
theedgemalaysia.com and edgeprop.my are the same publisher and not two. A separate, differently-numbered set of per-type figures on an agent page sits below the register’s own three-storey minimum and is counted separately, not as corroboration. StarProperty publishes no price at all, which is worth crediting. The filed band above is marketing information. It is not a price list, it is not a quotation and it is not an offer. The only price that binds anyone is in the official price list and in the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Ask Louis for both, dated.Why is the announced RM121.5 million GDV below the filed minima?
How big are the houses, really?
unitSummary.keluasan of 311–408 mps, which converts to about 3,348–4,391 sq ft at 1 m² = 10.7639 ft² (our conversion; the developer published no square-metre figure). The filed brochure is the odd one out and it is low on every single type — by 10, 71, 49 and 90 sq ft respectively, about 2.7% on Type D — and the register agrees with the marketing, not with the filing. That is the inverse of the usual trap: here the developer’s own filed advertisement understates its own product. Land is 50′ × 70′ on all four types, 3,500 sq ft (ours). Bedrooms and bathrooms: the e-brochure gives 5 + 1 bed and 7 bath for A and B and 4 bed and 6 bath for C and D, while the register prints a single phase-wide summary of 5 bed / 6 bath; the filing’s own floor-plan labels run to Bilik Tidur 4 and Bilik Mandi 4 but are not mapped to type codes, so no per-type count can be taken from the filing. Nothing here is reconciled, because reconciling it would hide the finding — check which figure your own SPA schedule carries before you sign.Is the delivery period extended?
pindaanTempohSerahKosong: “Tidak” and tempohTambahanDiluluskan: “-” — there is no approved extension of time on this project. All four sibling phases under licence 9829 read the same. That value is reported here as a fact about this project and nothing more: the tempting hypothesis that Schedule G landed phases never get extensions while Schedule H strata towers do was raised and refuted the same day by licence 9351, which carries five Ya values on Jadual G records and a Tidak on a Jadual H record. No rule is offered. There is, however, a timing question worth putting plainly. The developer’s own site photograph of 2 September 2026 is captioned “Piling work and structure wall in progress”, and the register’s 21.07% / 22.50% read on 9 October 2026 is consistent with it. From piling in September 2026 to vacant possession on 20 December 2027 is about 15 months for a two- to three-storey semi-detached house. With no extension on file, each purchaser’s 24-month Schedule G clock runs from their own SPA date and the liquidated-damages mechanic is live against it. The dates and the progress are stated; no forecast is offered. And one figure is refused: an agent page claims construction was “approximately 35% as of September 2026”, which contradicts both the register a month later and the developer’s own piling caption of the same month.Which completion date governs?
serahKosongIkutPjb: first SPA 20 December 2025 plus the 24-month Schedule G period. Each later buyer’s own 24 months runs from their own SPA date, so the register’s date is not a universal handover date. The filed brochure’s Tarikh Dijangka Siap is Dis 2027, and the developer’s page and e-brochure both say Dec 2027 — so the filed date and the register’s SPA-derived date agree, which is unusual in this series and worth saying. Two dates in circulation are not this project’s: 2036 is the township’s completion across 1,235 acres, printed by the advertorial, PropertyGuru and EdgeProp — do not attach it to these 40 houses; and “show units ready September 2026” is a sales-gallery milestone, not completion. The Edge, the advertorial, StarProperty and EdgeProp print no completion date at all. There is no filed CCC and no filed vacant possession on the record — both read “-”.Is the advertising and sales permit current?
9829-33/11-2027/0983(A)-(L), valid 24/11/2025 to 23/11/2027. The developer licence 9829/08-2028/1050(A) runs 26/08/2023 to 25/08/2028, about 22½ months left — and never pass the licence validity off as the permit validity, because here they differ by nine months. Two cautions. The filed brochure’s permit field is a literal placeholder, XXXX-XX/XX-XXXX/XXXX(X)-(X), with the validity field reading XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX — never filled in. Lapse is assessable only because the register and the developer’s own panel both print the real number and the real dates. And the suffix differs: the register’s project field says (A), active and latest, while both of the developer’s own surfaces print (N), which the register’s own history row marks not latest. This page publishes the register’s (A). Separately, no filed newspaper advertisement is reachable at all: IKLAN_AKHBAR_01.pdf 404s under both serials, and so does IKLAN_BROSUR_02.pdf — so the brochure is the only filed advertisement, and its permit field is blank.Which local authority and which district is it in?
MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/189, which the developer relabels “Building Plan Approval No”. So it is MBSA, not MPK and not MBPJ, and the section is Seksyen 35. The district is contested inside one register record: the projek.daerah field says Daerah Klang — as do all four sibling phases 9829-31 through -34 — while the licensee’s alamat_perniagaan field in the same record ends “40470, Petaling, Selangor”. The licensee’s registered address in that record is in Klang and the developer’s own published address block says Shah Alam. Both districts are reported here and neither is resolved, because no filing settles it. Materially it changes nothing: Zone 1 of the Selangor foreign-ownership scheme contains both Klang and Petaling. The mukim and the lot / PT number are NOT PUBLISHED on any reachable surface, and mybina leaves the Phase-2 address and lot blank. Both Selangor state registries were tried and both were inert: ehartanah.lphs.gov.my ignores the query and returns its default listing, and kuotalphs.selangor.gov.my returns a 500. An inert registry is never a negative finding.How far is it to anything?
Is it green-certified, and has it won anything?
greenbuildingindex.org’s certified-buildings directory 404s, which is inconclusive and never a negative. Nineteen keyword decoys were refused, including Casa Embun, Casa Boulevard Sdn Bhd, Casa Inspirasi Sdn Bhd and Taman Arcadia Impian. One line is worth stating on its own: S P Setia’s own awards page still lists its group headquarters as a current GreenRE Platinum rating from 2017 while the GreenRE register marks that certification EXPIRED — and that entry is under a different licensee anyway. On awards: Casa D’Arcadia has none. The developer’s awards page runs to several hundred entries and neither the project name nor “I&P” appears on it. Two entries name this township and both belong to the township’s public park: the Edge–ILAM Malaysia Sustainable Landscape Award 2025 and the Malaysia Landscape Architecture Awards MLAA15 2025, both for LakePoint Park, Setia AlamImpian — the 31-acre public park with the lake, musical fountain and amphitheatre. It is not inside the 51 acres, it is not this project’s land, and it is not on this page. The advertorial does place that award right next to Casa D’Arcadia’s copy, which is exactly how borrowing happens. One genuine credit to the developer: neither the filed brochure nor the e-brochure nor the project page makes any certification claim at all — green features are listed (solar panel, rainwater harvesting, EV readiness) with no rating, no logo and no “aligned with” wording, so there is no provisional-versus-certified ambiguity to untangle here. Ask for a certificate number and a status; never accept a logo.How dense is it?
Is the land freehold, and is it charged to a bank?
Who is the licensed developer, and is there a project SPV?
I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd, 199601021892 (394244-M), KPKT developer code 9829 — and there is no SPV. The register prints it I & P ALAM IMPIAN SDN.BHD., status Active, 34 registered projects, mempunyaiKesalahan: null — no offence flag. This is a township-level operating company incorporated in 1996, carrying 34 registered phases of Setia AlamImpian under one licence, so it is the opposite of the single-purpose-vehicle pattern most projects on this site show — and it predates S P Setia’s involvement by two decades, the township having been launched in November 2006 under I&P Group Sdn Bhd. Every filing names I&P Alam Impian; every newspaper and portal headline credits S P Setia, the listed parent. On structure: S P Setia agreed in June 2017 to acquire I&P Group Sdn Bhd from Permodalan Nasional Berhad for RM3.65 billion, and PNB is also S P Setia’s own parent, so the deal moved I&P between two PNB-controlled vehicles. The shareholding percentage in I&P Alam Impian Sdn Bhd itself is NOT PUBLISHED, and whether I&P Group became wholly owned is asserted by one source only — because S P Setia’s own annual-report archive on its own site stops at 2019, so the corporate-structure chart that would settle it is not reachable. No joint venture, no partner and no landowner other than the licensee is named for this project by any source.What would you ask the developer before signing?
Get the filed particulars, the price list and the Schedule G agreement — before the gallery visit, not after
Louis will send you the current filed advertisement particulars for project 9829-33, the official price list for the type you are actually interested in, the floor plan with its fixture and finishes schedule so you can check the built-up area against the SPA yourself, and the statutory Schedule G sale and purchase agreement — the one that sells you the house together with its land. He will also put the open questions to the developer in writing: the title type, the car-park allocation, the maintenance arrangement and the two floor plans nobody publishes.
Louis Koh is a registered estate agent acting for buyers, not the developer. Nothing on this page is a price list, a quotation or an offer, and the filed statutory band shown here is reproduced from public filings for information only.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, Registered Estate Agency
Over a decade covering Johor Bahru and the Klang Valley. Louis builds these pages the hard way: the filed KPKT particulars first, every hard number attributed to a named published source, and an explicit list of what nobody publishes — because on a project like this one, where the marketing name is in no filing and 77% of the masterplan is unregistered, the gaps are the useful part. Ask him anything on this page and he will show you the document it came from, or tell you plainly that there isn’t one.
Published 9 October 2026 · Last verified 9 October 2026 against KPKT TEDUH project 9829-33 (and the dormant twin 9829-32, plus sibling phases 9829-31 and 9829-34), licensee record 9829, the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure at files/9829/9829-33/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf, the developer’s own Casa D’Arcadia project page and e-brochure on spsetia.com, the four GreenRE tier registers, the S P Setia awards register, mybina’s Phase-2 record, and the published press of 26 and 28 November 2025. This is marketing information, not an offer. Filed particulars change — verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my under 9829-33 before you rely on anything here.
Worth putting beside this one
SelangorErat Residence @ Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, Shah Alam — registered <b><code>KONDOMINIUM ERAT</code></b>, KPKT project <code>9760-6</code>: <b>269 condominium units on <code>Jadual H</code> in one 27-storey tower</b>, <b>no extension of time has ever been filed</b>, and <b>the published “20% take-up” is refuted by the developer’s own later filing — <i><code>Baki belum dijual (251 unit)</code> makes it 18 of 269 = 6.69%</i></b>
WhatsApp
Selangor
Selangor
Selangor
Selangor
SelangorAsk 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: S P Setia (11 developments on this site)
Where it is: Shah Alam, Selangor
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).
9829-33 · SETIA ALAM IMPIAN
Overall status: Lancar — on schedule
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rumah Berkembar 3 storeys Lancar | 5 / 6 | 398 – 408 m² | 28 | RM3,743,111.00 – RM4,158,667.00 | 28.75% |
| Rumah Berkembar 2 storeys Lancar | 4 / 5 | 311 m² ≈ 3,348 sq ft | 12 | RM2,536,444.00 – RM2,885,334.00 | 31.67% |
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 9829-33. 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.