GRAND DAMANSARA @ Petaling Jaya — registered GRAND DAMANSARA, register code 30249-1, 330 units: 220 Pangsapuri Servis + 110 SOHO, Jadual H on ALL 330 — the SOHO units INCLUDED, vacant possession moved by an APPROVED 12-month extension from 03/08/2026 to 03/08/2027 — licensee GRAND GLOBAL HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., off the Sprint Highway, Daerah Petaling, Selangor

Why this page reads differently from every brochure on this project

Seven things. Each one is a document this page read and a decision it made in the open, and every one of them is checkable against a code you can type into the public register yourself: 30249-1.

Seven marketed types, 273 to 936 ft² — and NOT ONE of them is a filed built-up

Read this before any card below. The filed statutory advertisement does not print Luas binaan at all, and the register’s keluasan field reads 0 on BOTH component rows. There is no filed built-up schedule on this project in any form. So the seven sizes below are the DEVELOPER’S OWN MARKETING FIGURES, taken from its own integrated-living page, and every one of them is labelled that way on its own card. No source attaches a bedroom count, a bathroom count or a car-park bay to any single type: the only room data that exists anywhere is the register’s, and the register gives it per COMPONENT — Pangsapuri Servis 2 to 3 bedrooms and 1 to 2 bathrooms, SOHO 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. No source maps either tower onto either filed component, and no source attaches a price to a size, so this page attaches none. No square-metre figure is published by anybody, so no conversion is offered: it would be this page’s own arithmetic.

Four notes that belong under this section rather than inside a card. First, the drawings. Ten unit-layout and floor-plan drawings are published by the developer and all ten are vector files, which this site cannot yet serve — so this section ships with no drawing rather than with a substitute, and the cards will be filled in without anything else on this page changing. Second, the developer’s own drawing titles are CROSSED against its own filenames: on the studio, executive and dual-key pairs, the file whose NAME contains “unit” carries the “floor plan” title and the file whose name does not carries the “unit layout” title. That is a reason to read a drawing rather than trust its label, and it is why none of these cards describes a layout it has not been shown. Third, the RETAIL podium. The developer markets ground- and first-floor retail “suitable for F&B outlets, cafés, drive-through fast food and convenience stores”. It appears in NO register row: no retail unit count, no retail area, no retail licence, no retail permit. It is therefore not a card in this section, and nothing in the statutory protections described on this page may be read across onto a retail lot. Fourth, the decoy that is already on this site. Two draft pages here record an agent page whose meta description read “Grand Damansara” over a completely different project’s content. It is resolved: this project is genuinely 40 storeys with a genuine 273-to-936 ft² marketed range, so the numbers travelled out of here and into somebody else’s template. That page remains unusable for either project.

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.

Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Selangor — off the Sprint Highway

The district had to be settled before the foreign-buyer threshold could be looked up, and it settles four independent ways with nothing disagreeing. First, the filed building-plan reference MBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7), whose MBPJ prefix is a Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya reference and whose /120100/T/P10/ body is the stable MBPJ pattern — the sixth project on this site to carry it. Second, Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan printed in WORDS on the same filed document as MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA, whose jurisdiction lies only inside Petaling Jaya. Third, the register’s own daerah: “Petaling ” and negeri: Selangor. Fourth, the filed coordinates 3.131960, 101.611990, which are in valid range and sit in inner Petaling Jaya. The LOCALITY is a different matter, and this page says so plainly: it is NOT FILED. Alamat tapak is NOT PRINTED, the register carries no address, no mukim and no postcode for this project, and no lot or PT number exists on any surface read.

KPKT register and the filed advertisement: GRAND DAMANSARA, register code 30249-1

There is exactly ONE filed document on this project. IKLAN_BROSUR_01 is the filed statutory advertisement particulars; its two sibling files in the same HIMS directory were fetched and are genuinely absent, so the directory discriminates and one document is the whole filed record. It is a better-than-average filing in some fields and a placeholder in others: it prints the tenure, the lease expiry, the chargee, both price bands, both unit counts with their Baki figures, the approving authority in words and the building-plan reference — and it prints BOTH advertising-permit fields as XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Every cell below is a field on 30249-1, a line on that filed document, a row in the GreenRE registers, a statement on one of the developer’s own two websites, or a reading from one of two third-party portals, read on 15 October 2026 and quoted with its own key.

How to check this table yourself in two minutes. Search the public KPKT TEDUH register for the project record 30249-1 or the developer code 30249 — and on this project, unusually, searching the NAME works too, because the registered name and the marketing name are the same string. What will NOT work is a DEVELOPER-name search on “Grand Damansara”: that endpoint matches developer names only, and it returns zero because no licensee in Malaysia is called that. The zero is about the endpoint, not about the project. The filed advertisement itself sits in the HIMS file store under the developer code, and it is the document that carries the price bands, the tenure, the lease expiry, the chargee and the Baki figures quoted above.

Statutory particulars read 15 October 2026 from KPKT register record 30249-1 and the filed statutory advertisement particulars IKLAN_BROSUR_01. The two filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands above are the filed statutory bands and nothing else: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Figures attributed to a portal are that portal’s, not the developer’s and not filed. Marketing information only — the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery are the only documents that bind.

What Jadual H gives all 330 units — the 110 SOHO parcels included

All 330 units at Grand Damansara are sold on Jadual H, and this page states that flatly rather than hedging it. The register prints ONE pjb object for the whole of 30249-1 and it reads jenis: Jadual H with tempohAsal: 36 Bulan; both filed components sit on ONE developer licence, 30249, and under ONE advertising and sales permit, 30249-1/07-2027/0578(R)-(S). So for every one of the 330, SOHO parcels included: the prescribed statutory Schedule H sale contract rather than a freely negotiated one; the statutory delivery period, here extended to 48 months by an approved amendment; the Schedule H liquidated-damages formula if that period is missed; the section 7A housing development account, into which a purchaser’s money must be paid; the statutory defect liability period running from vacant possession; and access to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Why this paragraph comes first, and why it is the best news on the page. Project after project on this site has had to be re-framed because a SOHO, suite or office component turned out to sit OUTSIDE the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 — no statutory contract, no liquidated-damages formula, no housing development account, no Tribunal. Here it is the other way round: the 110 units the developer markets with workspace-and-studio language are filed SOHO and they are HDA-protected anyway. A buyer of a 273 ft² “Studio Suite” on this project gets the same statutory contract as a buyer of a 936 ft² Tower B unit. THE ONE CARVE-OUT, and it is a real one. The ground- and first-floor RETAIL podium the developer markets appears in NO register row: no retail unit count, no retail area, no retail licence, no retail permit. Nothing above may be read across onto a retail lot, and this page makes no statement about what contract form a retail lot would be sold on, because no document says. Check all of this with the CODE rather than the name: 30249-1, licence 30249/10-2027/0248(A).

The approved 12-month extension — and why the brochure’s date is the wrong one to plan around

This is the most important paragraph on the page for anyone buying here, so it is written out in full. The register’s delivery block reads: tarikhPjbPertama: 03 Aug 2023, tempohAsal: 36 Bulan, serahKosongIkutPjb: 03 Aug 2026 — and then pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 48 Bulan, serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama: 03 Aug 2027. In plain words: the first sale and purchase agreement was signed on 3 August 2023, the original contractual vacant possession date was 3 August 2026, and an APPROVED extension of twelve months moved it to 3 August 2027. Three things follow, and all three are uncomfortable to print. First, the original date has ALREADY PASSED — about two and a half months before this reading. Second, there is no CCC and no vacant possession on the record: ccc and vp read - on both component rows. Third, the register nevertheless rates the project Lancar, on schedule, on both components and overall, and does NOT flag it Lewat — because it is measuring against the REVISED date, which is still in the future. And the filed advertisement still prints Tarikh dijangka siap: Disember 2026. That is a stale filed estimate: the register’s own revised contractual date is eight months later. Four surfaces now carry four different completion answers — the filing’s December 2026, the register’s 3 August 2027, one portal’s “Q2 2027”, and a second portal’s Build End: N/A beside a build status of “Completed Unit Available” that is flatly wrong against the register. No document reconciles them and this page does not pretend to. What to do with that as a buyer, stated once and plainly: your Schedule H clock runs from the date of YOUR OWN sale and purchase agreement, and the contractual delivery period on this project is the amended 48 months, not the original 36. The date to plan around is the register’s revised date, not the brochure’s. Then read one more field beside it: the current advertising and sales permit expires 27 July 2027, about SEVEN DAYS before that contractual date. No source says whether a further renewal is intended. This page juxtaposes the two and alleges nothing from the juxtaposition. One corroboration worth giving credit for: of the two third-party portals, exactly one has actually read the extension — it prints a construction period of “36 months + 12 months”. The other has not. And the developer’s own construction-progress page corroborates nothing at all: month tabs from October 2023 to October 2025, no percentage, no work-stage description, no text of any kind, and photographs last taken on 18 October 2025. Its last published progress is about twelve months stale on a project due in under ten months.

Berfasa, one licensed phase, and the sibling with no filing at all

The register says this development is PHASED and licenses exactly one phase. status.maklumatPembangunan reads Berfasa, while pemaju.jumlahProjek reads 1 and the serial walk closes with a client error at 30249-2. At the same time the group’s own current-projects page markets a separate scheme called Grand Damansara II, located as “Damansara, Petaling Jaya”, with its own thumbnail and its own carousel entry beside this one. Grand Damansara II has NO KPKT developer licence row, NO advertising and sales permit, NO HIMS filing and NO register entry. The Selangor State controlled-price project list, version 10 September 2026, carries no row for this licensee at all, and the State quota list carries none either. Said as plainly as it can be said: exactly 330 units on registration 30249-1 are licensed, advertised and HDA-protected. Grand Damansara II is a NEIGHBOUR, not this product, and nothing crosses between them — not a render, not a built-up, not a facility, not a facility level, not a completion date and not a price. It is named here exactly once, as a cross-reference, with that status attached — because a buyer who is shown a plan or a render for “phase two” needs to know that what is being shown is not inside the registration that protects the unit being sold. And one piece of arithmetic that belongs here rather than in a specification table: 330 units over two towers that the register puts at 40 storeys each is about FOUR units per floor, which is implausibly low for a tower marketed with 273 ft² studios. That is independent reason to read 330 as a licensed PHASE rather than as the whole built form — and it is arithmetic, not evidence. It is also why one portal’s 981-unit figure is refused rather than disproved: it may be somebody’s number for a larger unregistered whole.

There is NO filed built-up schedule — so no square foot on this page is presented as filed

This is the biggest single gap on the project and it is worth its own paragraph. Luas binaan is NOT PRINTED on the filed statutory advertisement, and the register’s keluasan field reads 0 on BOTH component rows. On other projects on this site that field has been square metres corroborated to the square foot. Here it is a zero: not a figure in different units, no figure at all. The standing rule on this site is: never take a built-up from a filing’s narrative prose, only from its statutory schedule. On this project that rule resolves to there is nothing to take. So every square-foot figure in circulation — 273, 469, 471, 686, 916 and 936 ft², and the 273-to-936 range that every brochure, portal and agent page quotes — is the DEVELOPER’S OWN MARKETING FIGURE, published on the developer’s own page. Each one is labelled that way on its own card in the layouts section, every time it appears, with no exception. Two consequences. First, no square-metre figure is published by anybody, so this page offers no conversion: a metric figure here would be the page’s own arithmetic dressed as a specification. Second, no price per square foot appears on this page either, for the same reason twice over — no per-type price is filed and no per-type area is filed. What closes it: the Jadual H floor-area schedule inside the sale and purchase agreement for one specific unit, or the developer’s own unit chart in writing. Louis Koh will ask for both.

Foreign buyers — Daerah Petaling is Zone 1, and not one unit reaches the floor

The derivation, in four steps, each of which is checkable. One: the district comes from the filed building-plan reference MBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7) and from MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA printed in words as the approving authority on the same filed document — MBPJ’s jurisdiction lies only inside Petaling Jaya, i.e. Daerah Petaling. Two: Daerah Petaling sits in Selangor ZONE 1, together with Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang. Three: the Zone 1 minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM2,000,000. Four: the filed statutory MAXIMUM across both components of this project is RM915,800. Therefore, in one sentence: not one of the 330 units in this registration reaches the Selangor Zone 1 foreign-ownership floor at its filed statutory price, so a foreign buyer cannot purchase here at all. The dearest filed unit in the scheme is about 46% of the threshold. This is the simplest answer this question has on any page on this site: the obstacle is the PRICE, and it is not close. It is not a title problem — the product is strata — and it is not a restriction-in-interest problem either, because Sekatan kepentingan is NOT PRINTED on the filing, so nothing is known about a consent requirement on the land one way or the other. Two further notes for completeness. The Selangor circular that once created an RM1,500,000 window has EXPIRED and is not current, so it is not applied here. For reference only, and not applicable to this project: the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur threshold is RM1,000,000 with Economic Planning Unit consent, and Selangor Zone 3, i.e. Hulu Selangor, is RM1,000,000. Sabak Bernam was not verified for this page and no figure is stated for it. A Malaysian lawyer confirms all of this on the specific parcel; Louis Koh will refer you to one.

Construction progress — and why this page publishes no percentage

Not one construction-progress percentage is published for this project by anybody, and the reason is worth understanding because it looks at first as though two figures exist. The register’s status.rows objects carry jenis, tingkat, bilik, tandas, keluasan, unit, hargaMin, hargaMax, peratus, komponen, ccc and vp — and NOTHING that says what peratus measures. There is no peratusSiap key on this record and no terjual key either. The two values are 90.79 on the SOHO row and 91.02 on the Pangsapuri Servis row. They cannot be reported as percent built, and they cannot be reported as percent sold: the number is real and its unit is undocumented. So this page does not convert them into either claim, and it does not reconcile them against the filing’s Baki 1 / Baki 0, which is a different quantity measured a different way. Two government surfaces, two numbers, one of them unadjudicable by construction — and a register note that says only that component status follows the latest 7(f) report in HIMS. The developer publishes no percentage either: its construction-progress page is month tabs with no figures and no text, ending at October 2025. What closes it: the developer’s own current 7(f) architect certification, or a site visit. Ask for the first and Louis Koh will arrange the second.

No affordable-housing component, no eligibility test and no transfer moratorium

A clean negative, established from the document rather than assumed. The Selangor housing board’s controlled-price project list, version 10 September 2026, carries NO row for this project and NO row for this licensee: no GRAND row and no GLOBAL HEIGHTS row anywhere in it. Its 126-row State quota list carries none either. Two rows in the same gazetted bandar of Petaling Jaya were examined and refused as decoys — affordable schemes by different licensees — and the nearest miss on the developer axis matches only on the word GLOBAL, in a different bandar. So: no Rumah Selangorku component, no Komersial Mampu Milik component, no household-income eligibility test, and no FIVE-YEAR TRANSFER MORATORIUM reaches any unit in this project. That last point is the one that matters in practice: on a controlled-price unit, a transfer is only permitted five years after the sale and purchase agreement. Nothing like that applies here. Corroborated independently by the filed minimum of RM230,000 against that document’s own controlled-price figures, and by the absence of any affordable-price row on the register. And the methodological caveat that keeps this honest: absence from that list is NOT a negative in general, because the list carries only stock open for application. Here it is being used to exclude an affordable COMPONENT, which is exactly what it can do.

What nobody publishes about this project — and the document that would close each one

Seventeen things a buyer would reasonably ask and no source answers. Each is followed by what would actually close it. One, the site address. → the property description in the filed Jadual H sale contract, or the MBPJ development-order file for plan MBPJ/120100/T/P10/797/2022(7). Two, the lot or PT number, and three, the mukim. → an official land search on the parcel. Four, an official postcode. → the same two documents; the only postcode in circulation is a portal’s and may be inherited from the developer’s own office. Five, the ENTIRE built-up schedule. → the Schedule H floor-area schedule, or the developer’s own unit chart. Six, the land area — and therefore density. → the land search, or the development order. Seven, car parking: no total bay count and no per-unit allocation from ANY source. → the strata plan and the developer’s written allocation. Eight, which tower is the SOHO and which the Pangsapuri Servis. → the developer in writing, or the sale contract’s own description of the parcel. Nine, built-ups, bedrooms and bathrooms for Tower B types B1 and B2, whose existence is evidenced only by drawing filenames. → the developer’s unit chart. Ten, bedroom and bathroom counts per TYPE: the register gives them per component and nobody gives them per type. → the layout drawings with the room list on them. Eleven, whether the “Dual Key Suite” is actually dual-key — no room list, no door count, no entry count. → the drawing, and the sale contract’s floor plan. Twelve, the storey count on a FILED document: the 40 comes from the register alone. → the approved building plan. Thirteen, the retail podium: unit count, areas, and whether any lot is for sale rather than for lease. → the developer in writing; nothing about it is on the register at all. Fourteen, the section 7A housing development account number. → the sale contract itself. Fifteen, Sekatan kepentingan — NOT PRINTED, so whether State consent is needed to transfer is unknown. → the land search or the issue document of title. Sixteen, whether the advertising and sales permit will be renewed past 27 July 2027, about a week before contractual delivery. → the developer in writing. Seventeen, the architect, the civil and structural engineer, the main contractor, the quantity surveyor, any construction-progress percentage, the GDV, and a facilities-by-level schedule — all absent, and with a private licensee and no listed contractor there is no contract announcement to rescue any of them. → the developer in writing. Louis Koh will ask the developer, in writing, for any of the above.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh’s instruction about his own agency’s project materials is absolute, and this page keeps to it: no price-adjustment figure of any kind appears here — not in English, not in Chinese, not in the page body and not in its structured data. First, the field that had to be handled with care, because the filing itself carries it. The filed statutory advertisement contains a field printed Diskaun Bumiputera, and that field carries a value. The field EXISTS; its value is WITHHELD, and it is recorded nowhere on this page and nowhere in the research behind it. A figure sitting on a public statutory document is exactly the kind that gets copied across in good faith, which is why it is named here and refused here. And the clean negative beside it, stated precisely because the three shapes are easy to confuse: that field is a price concession, it is NOT an ethnic unit quota and it is NOT a lot-title classification. The filing’s ethnic unit-quota field is NOT PRINTED, the register carries no ethnic-quota percentage on this record, and no source anywhere publishes a lot-title classification. So there is no quota figure to withhold — there is no quota row at all. Second, the plain list. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive and no commission figure appears anywhere on this page, in either language. Beyond the concession field above, nothing of that kind was found on any surface read — not on the developer’s two websites, not on the filed advertisement, not in the register and not on either portal. Saying which of the two it is — found and suppressed, or genuinely absent — is the difference between a disclosure and a formula. Third, and this project set a new precedent for this site. The developer’s own website carries an opening “from RM___” headline, and it is ASTERISKED with “T&C apply”. It is NOT below the filed statutory minimum — the usual test on this site — and it is still refused, because an asterisked figure is conditional on terms the page cannot read, which makes it an offer figure rather than a price. So the test is the ASTERISK, not the direction. No digits from it appear here. Fourth, one portal publishes TWO DIFFERENT “from” figures on a single page — one in its body and a different one in its own page description. Both are above the filed minimum, and both are withheld on the same asterisk-free but unverifiable ground. The DISAGREEMENT is the finding, and there is no second independent publisher to collapse it against. That same portal also carries a computed monthly instalment with its own loan assumptions, and a “Pros” block containing a literal unfilled placeholder where a monthly figure should be — a number it could not even finish computing. No part of any of that is reproduced here: no instalment, no margin, no tenure, no rate. Fifth, returns. No yield, no ROI, no rental-return, no gross-return, no leaseback and no guaranteed-rental rate appears on this page — and on this project NOTHING in that family exists on any surface read, so there was nothing to refuse. On a scheme that is effectively sold out, that is worth stating positively. What this page DOES publish on price, and nothing beyond it: the two filed statutory Unit Selling Price bands registered with KPKT and printed on the filed advertisement — RM270,000 to RM915,800 for the 220 Pangsapuri Servis units and RM230,000 to RM503,800 for the 110 SOHO units — always labelled as the filed statutory bands, always as ONE band per component rather than a figure attached to any built-up or any type, and always with the same caveat: this is not a price list, it is not a quotation, and it is not an offer. Those bands are the SPA price ranges, which is the one kind of price figure this site publishes, and the public registry band is identical at both ends of both components. One charge is published, labelled a charge and attributed: a maintenance figure of RM0.44 per square foot which ONE portal states as including the sinking fund, and which neither developer website nor the filing publishes. Get it in writing before relying on it. For the current price list, for the sale and purchase agreement itself, and for anything attaching to one specific unit, speak to Louis Koh and he will get it in writing.

Grand Damansara: the questions, and the honest answers

Projects worth comparing — and exactly what does NOT travel between them

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 against KPKT 30249-1, the filed statutory advertisement particulars, the GreenRE registers and certification entry list, the Selangor State controlled-price and quota project lists, the licensed developer’s own two websites and two third-party property portals. Marketing information, not an offer.