Laverra @ Bandar Sri Damansara — 1,008 units on 2.84 acres, and no statutory filing anywhere
Two towers on a 2.84-acre freehold parcel beside the Sri Damansara Barat MRT station. The licensed developer is SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD (110516-H), a subsidiary of the Bursa-listed Land & General Berhad (196401000184 / 5507-H) — printed openly in the footer of its own project microsite. Every figure below is attributed to a named published source. Where the developer’s own two documents disagree, this page shows both. Where nobody published a figure, the row says so.
I reply with what is actually filed and published, and with a list of what is not. Not a brochure.
Laverra @ Bandar Sri Damansara at a glance
Fifteen facts, each with the source that published it. Five of them are blanks, because five of the things a buyer most needs are not published by anyone — starting with the advertising permit.
- Registered scheme name
- NOT PUBLISHEDNo source of any kind publishes a registered Residensi name for this project, and a search of hims.kpkt.gov.my for LAVERRA returns no documents at all. The group does use registered names elsewhere — L&G’s own release calls the sibling project Residensi Kamelia. For Laverra there is nothing to quote.
- Name the developer itself uses
- Laverra Seri Damansara ResidencesNote Seri, not Sri, on both the project microsite and the listed parent’s own project index — while the parent’s own press release calls it Damansara Laverra and every third party writes Sri. Six spellings are in circulation.
- Licensed developer
- SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD (110516-H)Printed in the footer of every page of the developer’s own microsite, and on both sibling microsites — four identical readings. A subsidiary of the Bursa-listed Land & General Berhad (196401000184 / 5507-H). The 12-digit registration number is not printed anywhere. This is the company that signs your sale and purchase agreement, not Land & General Berhad.
- Developer licence number and APDL
- NOT PUBLISHED ANYWHERENot by the developer, not by its listed parent, not in KPKT’s public files, not by any portal. The microsite’s complete page table is four pages and contains no statutory-particulars page at all. Five months after the developer says more than 600 units were booked in a day.
- Total units
- 1,008L&G’s own launch release (Bernama / The Star), StarProperty, EdgeProp’s project record, PropertyGuru and Dourr — five sources agree. EdgeProp’s own advertorial says 1,000, contradicting EdgeProp’s own project record.
- Towers and floor plate
- 2 towers · 8 – 12 units per floor · 4 lifts per coreL&G’s release and Dourr. The storey count is not published by the developer or by L&G. PropertyGuru alone says 40 floors, unsourced, and that does not reconcile with 8 or 10 units per floor. The unit split between the two towers is not published either.
- Land area
- 2.84 acres · 123,710 sq ft2.84 acres in L&G’s own release; 123,710 sq ft independently on an agency portal. 123,710 ÷ 43,560 = 2.84 exactly, so the two agree. The 5.21 acres in circulation is Senses Park, the shared township park — not this project’s parcel.
- Density
- About 355 units per acreMy own arithmetic, on the developer’s own two published figures: 1,008 ÷ 2.84. That is a high-density, transit-adjacent site. The “low-density” wording in circulation describes only the 8 – 12 units on each floor plate, which is a different thing.
- Tenure
- FreeholdCarried by L&G’s release, the microsite, EdgeProp, PropertyGuru, Dourr and the agent sites. No filed title document has been seen by anyone, and the PT or lot number, mukim and daerah are not published.
- Title category and building type
- UNRESOLVED — and it changes your billsL&G’s own release says the site is residential-titled. EdgeProp’s advertorial calls it a freehold serviced apartment. PropertyGuru files the project and every listing on it as Service Residence. The developer’s own microsite states no building type whatsoever. Confirm the title category on the SPA and on the land title before you book.
- Layouts
- 725 · 905 · 1,150 sq ftType A 2 bed / 2 bath, Type B 3 bed / 2 bath, Type C 4 bed / 3 bath, from the developer’s own Floor Plans section. A fourth type, Type D, sits on the developer’s own Tower A floor plate with no specification published anywhere.
- Facilities podium
- Level 9Facility Podium @ Level 9 — the only level label the developer prints in text, corroborated by an agency portal and by Dourr. Every other facility level is unassigned by everyone.
- Expected completion
- Q2 2030, the developer’s own targetL&G’s own release. No filed vacant possession date exists. EdgeProp publishes three mutually exclusive dates across three of its own pages — 2029, 30 April 2029 and 2031.
- Approving authority and state
- NOT FILED — reported as MBPJ, SelangorNo building-plan approval number and no approving authority is published by anyone. The weight of independent evidence puts the site in Selangor, Daerah Petaling, under Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya; the developer’s own letterhead reads 52200 Kuala Lumpur. Read the location section for why both are true-looking.
- Price
- Not published on this pageThere is no filed statutory Unit Selling Price range for this project, so the usual test cannot even be run. The asking figures that portals and agents carry are inconsistent with the developer’s own published average by a wide margin across at least four independent carriers. Under my standing policy the only price that belongs on a page is the SPA price, and no SPA price range has been filed. So this page carries no price at all. The price list and the SPA at the sales gallery are where a real figure comes from.
Jump to what you came for
This page is organised around the questions a buyer actually asks — beginning with the one nobody has answered in public.
Thirteen things about this project that do not add up — and the source for each
None of this is rumour. Every item comes from the developer’s own microsite, from its Bursa-listed parent’s own launch release, from a government register, or from a named published article. Where two of the developer’s own sources disagree, both are shown.
No statutory filing exists anywhere — and that is the headline
As at 8 October 2026, roughly five months after a launch at which the developer says more than 600 units were booked in a day, there is no APDL number, no No. Lesen Pemaju, no approving local authority and no building-plan approval number published for Laverra by the developer, by Land & General Berhad, by KPKT’s public files or by any portal. The microsite’s own page table — its complete list — is four pages, and not one of them is a statutory-particulars page. Whether the APDL is current or lapsed cannot be assessed, because there is no number to check. Under the Housing Development Act and its advertising regulations a licensed developer’s advertisement is required to carry these particulars. Ask for the APDL number and the licence number, and check them against the KPKT register, before you pay a booking fee.
Six spellings, and the registered name is unknown
“Laverra”, EdgeProp’s misspelt “Leverra” in its own URL, “Damansara Laverra” in the parent’s press release, “Laverra Residences”, “Laverra Seri Damansara Residences” on the developer’s own two websites, and “NEW PJ North Residences” on an agency portal. The developer’s own corporate site and its own press release disagree with each other. No registered scheme name is published by anyone, and KPKT’s files return nothing for LAVERRA at all. Quote the licensee’s name and the street, not a trade name, when you ask for documents.
The 5.21-acre density trap
EdgeProp’s advertorial prints Laverra’s “Land area: 5.21 acres”. That figure is Senses Park — public open space on the MRT-station parcel, shared across the township — and the proof is that the Livista pamphlet prints the same 5.21 acres for a different project. The real parcel is 2.84 acres, from L&G’s own release and independently as 123,710 sq ft. Using 5.21 acres as a denominator understates density by a factor of 1.8 and inflates any plot-ratio sum built on it.
“Low density” describes the floor plate, not the site
The advertorial’s “low-density floor planning (approximately 8–12 units per floor)” is a floor-plate statement doing duty as a density claim. On the developer’s own two figures, 1,008 units on 2.84 acres is about 355 units per acre. Even against the wrong 5.21-acre denominator it is about 193. This is a compact, transit-oriented site. It is not a low-density one, and the honest way to say so is to say so.
Selangor or Kuala Lumpur — no filed document settles it
The weight of independent evidence says Selangor, Daerah Petaling, under MBPJ: The Edge’s township cover story names MBPJ; Wikipedia’s township article names Petaling district and MBPJ; the adjoining MRT station’s own address carries the PJU 9 planning code, which is a Petaling Jaya Utara designation and cannot be a Kuala Lumpur one; and both major portals file the project in Selangor. Against that, the developer’s own address line on all three of its township microsites reads “52200 Kuala Lumpur”, and so do StarProperty’s and EdgeProp’s renderings of the launch. That is a Pos Malaysia artifact on a township that straddles the boundary — not a typo and not a settled fact. No filed document resolves it, because no filed document for this project could be located.
Residential title, or a commercial-title serviced apartment?
This is the most consequential unresolved question on the project, and it is not a labelling quibble. A serviced apartment or service residence in Malaysia is normally on commercial title: commercial quit rent, commercial water and electricity tariffs, commercial assessment, a different financing and resale pool. A condominium on residential title is not. L&G’s own release says the site is residential-titled — the best evidence available. EdgeProp’s advertorial says freehold serviced apartment. PropertyGuru files the project, and every agent listing on it, as Service Residence. EdgeProp’s own project record says Condominium/Apartment. The developer’s microsite says nothing at all. For a project carrying 600+ bookings, that silence is itself the finding.
Because of that, HDA cover cannot be verified — and it matters
No APDL, no developer licence number and no housing-development account reference is published. If the product is in fact a commercial-title serviced apartment, the sale may fall outside the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act — meaning no Schedule H contract, no statutory liquidated damages for late delivery, no statutory defect-liability retention and no HDA housing development account. Here that exposure would apply to all 1,008 units, not to a non-residential sub-block. This page will not paper over it: get the answer in writing, on the licence and on the title, before any money moves.
Three completion dates, from one publisher
The developer’s own target is Q2 2030 (L&G’s release; PropertyGuru and an agency portal also carry 2030; Dourr carries Q2 2030 and tells you to confirm it with the developer). EdgeProp publishes 2029 in its advertorial, 30 April 2029 on its project record, and 2031 on its new-launch listing — three mutually exclusive dates across three of its own pages. This page uses the developer’s Q2 2030 and tells you about the rest. No filed vacant possession date exists at all.
One MRT station, four different distances
Sri Damansara Barat (PY06) is given as about 500 m by L&G’s own release and the developer’s microsite, as 330 m by one PropertyGuru agent listing, as 840 m and “a 10-minute walk” by another, and is absent from Dourr’s own distance tables while appearing in its FAQ. PropertyGuru separately lists three MRT stations as “nearby” with no distance for any of them. This page publishes only the developer’s own ~500 m, attributed. And on the walkway: the microsite calls it a “direct covered walkway” in the present tense while L&G’s own press release calls it “planned”. It is not built.
Type C has two, three or four bathrooms depending on who you ask
The developer’s own Floor Plans section says 3, and EdgeProp’s advertorial and Dourr agree. PropertyGuru says 2. The agent microsite laverra-residence.com says 4. This page uses the developer’s 3 and nothing else. Type A has the same problem in miniature: 725 sq ft on the developer’s site, 721 on EdgeProp’s project record, 720 on a PropertyGuru agent listing — and EdgeProp’s advertorial prints “7905 sq ft” for Type B in a gallery caption.
A Type D on the developer’s own floor plate, with no schedule entry
The developer publishes Types A, B and C. A fourth type, Type D, appears on the Tower A typical floor plate reproduced by Dourr, which states so explicitly — and no built-up, bedroom count, bathroom count or per-type unit count is published for it by anyone. If the floor plate has a Type D, the schedule has 1,008 units to account for and three published types to do it with. Ask for the Type D specification.
No award and no green certification belongs to Laverra
Land & General’s own award page lists eight entries and not one is Laverra’s: the 1996 FIABCI Malaysia award is for Bandar Sri Damansara the township, the two project awards belong to Damansara Foresta and Damansara Seresta, and the rest are corporate. GreenRE’s Gold register (130 rows read) and Platinum register (95 rows read) contain no Laverra, no Livista, no Kamelia, no Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd and no Land & General. The GBI directory contains none either. The developer claims no certification, not even a “targeting” one. The honest category here is none published.
“Livista Phase 2” is an agent’s claim, not a fact
A PropertyGuru agent listing is titled “Laverra Sri Damansara @ Livista Phase 2” and repeats “Livista Phase Two” in its own copy. Livista is the adjacent L&G project by the same licensee, and an independent construction record does exist for “SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD — SERVICED APARTMENT @ BANDAR SRI DAMANSARA (PHASE 2)” — but that record carries 29 storeys and 344 units, which matches neither Laverra (1,008 units, 2 towers), nor Livista (700), nor Kamelia (602). It is probably a third, separate tower. Nothing confirms Laverra is Livista Phase 2, so this page does not say it is.
What is actually being built, and the dated record behind it
The statistics band carries only figures a named source published, plus two pieces of arithmetic that are labelled as mine. The facilities schedule separates what the developer publishes from what only a portal or an agent publishes, because on this project those are two very different lists.
Facilities — what the developer publishes, and what only other people publish
The developer publishes a graphic, not a text schedule: its facilities section is built from image assets plus one short prose paragraph, and Level 9 is the only level label printed in text anywhere on its own site. The itemised 32-item list below is Dourr’s reading of that graphic, compiled 15 August 2026, grouped the way the developer’s own graphic groups it into a “Blue Oasis” and a “Green Oasis”. It is credited to Dourr, not to the developer.
Blue Oasis — water and swimming
- Infinity lap pool
- Ramp walk through water
- Sunken deck
- Submerged pool-edge seating
- Jacuzzi pod
- Sundeck and submerged sundeck
- Outdoor shower
- Water curtain from the gym roof
- Rain water feature
- Shallow pool and wading pool
Health and fitness
- Indoor gymnasium — Level 1 per Dourr, no level assigned by the developer
- Fitness pod
- Jogging path
- Reflexology path
- Circular basketball court
Green Oasis — gardens and outdoor
- Green terrace — roof level per Dourr
- Stepping stones with gravel
- Sunken green pod
- Lawn with long bench
- Kick-about and event lawn
- Pocket garden
- Zen garden
- Planter box
Social, arrival and security
- BBQ terrace
- Social deck
- Lounge area
- Multi-function deck
- Resting area
- Playground
- Elderly-friendly area
- Guardhouse and drop-off lobby — corroborated by the developer’s own image titles. Dourr records that staffing and access control are not detailed and that there is insufficient information on EV chargers.
Published by L&G’s own release but NOT by the microsite
- A 50-metre lap pool – this figure is L&G’s own, in its launch release carried by Bernama, The Star and StarProperty. The microsite’s graphic says only “infinity lap pool”. Because the 50 m is the developer’s own figure it is usable – attributed to the release.
- “Water cascade” and “Camping by the Sky” – press release only, in neither the graphic nor Dourr’s list.
Appear ONLY on portals or agent pages — flagged, not repeated as fact
- EdgeProp advertorial only: sky garden and sky recreational spaces, indoor games room, reading corners, multi-purpose courts, function rooms, multipurpose halls, co-working spaces, community lounges.
- An agency portal only: sauna, badminton court, multipurpose hall, pavilion, yoga area, reading room, entertainment room, prayer room, sky viewing deck, mini mart, gated and guarded. None of these appears in any developer source, and the mini mart and the sauna in particular should not be treated as provided.
- PropertyGuru’s facilities field for the whole project lists “Parking” and nothing else, and one of its agent listings states in its own FAQ that “there is no security” – against the developer’s own guardhouse render and a 32-item list. Both cannot be right.
Not published for facilities, therefore not on this page
- Which level each facility other than the Level 9 podium sits on
- Total facility deck area, and whether any facility is “space only” or shell space – no source marks any as such
- Maintenance or service charge rate, and the sinking fund
- Car park allocation per unit, total bays, visitor bays, motorcycle bays and EV charging – a bare “2” in one portal field is the only figure anywhere, and Dourr records the allocation as not stated
- Lift count per tower other than “4 per core”, and the lift-to-unit ratio
- Whether Senses Park is common property of Laverra, shared with Livista and Kamelia, or a township asset retained by L&G – and therefore who pays to maintain it
- Whether the covered MRT walkway is approved, funded, or committed to a date
Dated record — the launch release, the register searches, and the dates that contradict each other
Three published types, a fourth on the floor plate, and no filed schedule
There is no filed built-up schedule for this project, so there is no filed figure for built-up area, bedroom or bathroom count, car park allocation, or per-type unit count. Everything below is the developer’s own marketing schedule, read from its own Floor Plans section, with every third-party disagreement shown rather than averaged away.
Type A — 725 sq ft
The developer’s own figure is 725 sq ft, and EdgeProp’s advertorial and Dourr agree. EdgeProp’s own project record says 721 sq ft and a PropertyGuru agent listing says 720 — and that same listing files the unit as a “Terraced House” with 720 sq ft entered as both land area and floor area, in a high-rise project. The 67.4 m² is my conversion, not a published figure: the developer publishes no square-metre figures at all.
Ask for the Type A floor planType B — 905 sq ft
The developer, EdgeProp’s advertorial, PropertyGuru and Dourr all give 905 sq ft, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. Worth knowing anyway: EdgeProp’s advertorial prints “7905 sq ft” for this type in one of its own gallery captions, and EdgeProp’s project record has a Type B tab with no data in it at all. 84.1 m² is my conversion.
Ask for the Type B floor planType C — 1,150 sq ft
The largest published type, and the one the sources cannot agree on. Bathrooms: 3 on the developer’s own site, and EdgeProp’s advertorial and Dourr agree; 2 on PropertyGuru; 4 on the agent microsite laverra-residence.com. This page uses the developer’s 3 and nothing else. The developer’s claim that these are “among the most generous layouts in Sri Damansara & PJ” is published with no comparison set behind it — and its own neighbouring Livista publishes 1,012 and 1,035 sq ft types, within about 11% of this one.
Ask for the Type C floor planType D — on the floor plate, in no schedule
A Type D appears on the developer’s own Tower A typical floor plate, as reproduced by Dourr, which states so explicitly. No built-up, no bedroom count, no bathroom count, no per-type unit count and no price is published for it by anyone — not by the developer, not by any portal. The developer publishes only A, B and C. With 1,008 units to allocate across two towers and three published types, a fourth type on the plate is a question worth asking before you choose a unit, not after.
Ask what Type D isWhat a filed built-up schedule would tell you — and does not, here
Gross and net floor area per type. Balcony size. Ceiling and floor-to-floor heights. Whether units are bare, partly or fully fitted, and what kitchen, wardrobe or air-conditioning provision comes with them — one agent listing says “fully furnished” and the developer says nothing. Orientation and facing. Per-type unit counts and the split between Tower A and Tower B. The storey count. Total car park bays, visitor bays, motorcycle bays and EV charging. Plot ratio and setbacks. The Schedule the SPA runs under. None of these is published by the developer, by its listed parent, in any government register, or on any portal. They are exactly the questions I will put to Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd in writing for you.
Send me these questions in writingSquare-metre figures on this page are my own conversions and are labelled as such; the developer publishes none. No source claims a dual-key unit and no room list supports one, so the term is not used here. There is no studio type and no office, SOHO or SOFO type in any published schedule — every published type is a dwelling with bedrooms and bathrooms. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Artist’s impressions, with the subject of each one stated
All eight images come from the developer’s own content-management system, and every subject above is confirmed by the developer’s own stored title — none is inferred from a filename. A negative control was run against that server first, which returned a true 404 rather than a site shell, so reachability on it is trustworthy. Deliberately not used: the large block of images in the same library titled “Senses Park” — aerial, amphitheatre, outdoor cinema, pavilion, play area, staircase and lifestyle crops. Senses Park is the shared township park, not part of Laverra’s 2.84 acres, and publishing those as the project’s own facilities would repeat the 5.21-acre error in picture form. Also in that library, and worth knowing: part of the microsite’s motion content is AI-generated rather than photographed — one video asset is titled “Firefly make vehicles move through the highway on the left side”. No dated site progress photograph is published by anyone, and no floor plan or key plan is published in retrievable form.
Ask me for dated site photographsPersiaran Perdana, Bandar Sri Damansara — and why the state on your letterhead may not be the state you are in
The street and the postcode are published consistently. Everything official about the location is not: no approving authority, no building-plan approval number, no PT or lot number, no mukim, no daerah on a filed document, and no coordinate. The pin below is a place search on the published street address, not a filed coordinate, and it is labelled as such.
Read this before you trust a state on any document about this project. The weight of independent evidence puts the site in Selangor, Daerah Petaling, under Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya: The Edge’s township cover story names MBPJ and says the township sits at the Selangor–Kuala Lumpur border; Wikipedia’s township article names Petaling district, Selangor and MBPJ; the adjoining MRT station’s own address carries the PJU 9 planning code, a Petaling Jaya Utara designation that cannot be a Kuala Lumpur one; both major portals file the project in Selangor; and the developer’s own copy and an agency portal both reach for “PJ” when describing it. Against that, the developer’s own address line on all three of its township microsites reads “52200 Kuala Lumpur”, and StarProperty’s and EdgeProp’s renderings of the launch say Kuala Lumpur too. That is a Pos Malaysia artifact on a township that genuinely straddles the boundary — 52200 is written both ways by different authorities — and it is not a typo you can simply correct. No filed document settles it, because no filed document for this project could be located. Nothing has been copied across from Amaya Residences or The Arden, which are TA Global projects on the separate Damansara Avenue parcel.
Rail — the one figure worth quoting, and the three that are not
- Sri Damansara Barat (PY06), Putrajaya Line — about 500 m. That is L&G’s own figure, in its launch release and on its own microsite (“Sri Damansara West MRT (500m)”), and EdgeProp and the agent sites repeat it.
- The same station is given as 330 m by one PropertyGuru agent listing, as 840 m and a 10-minute walk by another, and is absent from Dourr’s own distance tables while appearing in its FAQ at “about 500 m”. Four answers for one station.
- PropertyGuru separately lists three stations as “nearby” — PY06 Sri Damansara Barat, PY07 Sri Damansara Sentral and PY08 Sri Damansara Timur — with no distance for any of them. Do not read that as three stations on the doorstep.
- The covered walkway is not built. The microsite calls it a “direct covered walkway to MRT Sri Damansara” in the present tense; L&G’s own press release calls it “a planned covered walkway”. The press release is the more cautious of the developer’s two documents, and it is the one this page follows. Whether it is approved, funded or committed to a date is not published.
- Other rail, the developer’s own figures: Sri Damansara Sentral MRT (PY07) 3 km; Kepong Sentral KTM 4 km; Damansara Damai MRT 7 km. Dourr’s own measurements differ on all three — 3.8 km, 4.8 km and 5.7 km. On the last one the developer’s figure is the longer, which is the opposite of the usual direction and suggests its table is not carefully maintained.
The developer’s own distance table, quoted as the developer’s
- The FLO and Star Grocer — 50 m (the sales gallery is at The FLO, a separate, already-completed L&G asset, not part of this project)
- 8trium, L&G’s own office tower — 500 m
- Senses Park — “neighbouring”, with no figure
- SK Bandar Sri Damansara 2 — 850 m
- Sri Bestari International School, L&G’s own school brand — named, with no figure
- IGB International School — 4.6 km
- ParkCity Medical Centre — 5.9 km; Sungai Buloh Hospital — 7.2 km; Selayang Hospital — 8.8 km
- IKEA — 7.2 km; 1 Utama — 8.7 km
Where an independent measurement disagrees — and by how much
- SK Bandar Sri Damansara 2: 850 m from the developer and its agent, against about 3.3 km measured by Dourr — a factor of 3.9. This is the worst disagreement on the project.
- Sri Bestari: 600 m from the agent site, against about 1.7 km measured — a factor of 2.8. Sri Bestari is L&G’s own school brand, so the developer has a direct interest in the shorter figure. Worth saying out loud.
- 8trium: 300 m on the agent site, 500 m on the developer’s, about 1.6 km measured. Three answers.
- Smaller gaps: SMK Bandar Sri Damansara 2 1.2 km against ~2.2 km; Lotus Menjalara 5.2 km against ~4.9 km; AEON Mall Metro Prima 6 km against ~6.6 km; 1 Utama 8.7 / 8.4 / ~8.1 km. The Curve and IGBIS are the only entries where all sources agree.
- Never blend the two tables. The figures above this list are the developer’s, attributed; the measured ones are Dourr’s own driving measurements as at 15 August 2026, and it says so.
Distances no source publishes — therefore not on this page
- Kuala Lumpur city centre and KLCC — no source publishes a distance or a drive time at all, which is unusual for a project marketed on connectivity
- MRR2, LDP, NKVE, Penchala Link and DUKE 2 — every highway is named by an agent site with no distance and no interchange named
- Sri Damansara Business Park, Damansara Seresta and Damansara Foresta — L&G’s own neighbouring assets, named without distances
- Desa ParkCity, Damansara Perdana, Damansara Damai, Kepong and Sungai Buloh — named as neighbours, never with a figure
- The nearest police station, fire station, mosque, wet market, petrol station or clinic, and the primary-school catchment
Filed location particulars
- Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan pelan bangunan: NOT PRINTED — MBPJ is reported by The Edge, not filed
- No. kelulusan pelan bangunan: NOT PRINTED
- PT or lot number, mukim, daerah on a filed document: NOT PRINTED
- Koordinat: NOT PRINTED — no source publishes a coordinate for this project
- Land area: 2.84 acres / 123,710 sq ft, from L&G’s release and an agency portal — not from a filing
- Flood history, surrounding land use and what is planned on the remaining township parcels: not published
Density, stated the honest way, because this township has a standing trap in it. Laverra places 1,008 units on a 2.84-acre site — about 355 units per acre on the developer’s own two figures, which is why that arithmetic is safe to publish. It is a compact, transit-oriented site, not a low-density one. The 5.21 acres that EdgeProp prints as Laverra’s land is Senses Park, public open space on the MRT-station parcel — and the proof is that the Livista pamphlet prints the same 5.21-acre park for a different project. Dividing 1,008 units by it would give about 193 units per acre, which is both still high and computed against land that is not the project’s. Senses Park’s own relationship to the site is given four different ways by four sources: “neighbouring” by the developer, “adjacent” by an agent, about 320 m away by an independent measurement, and “the project’s land” by EdgeProp. Only one of those four can be right.
The statutory advertisement block for Laverra — and the fact that it does not exist
Malaysian law requires a licensed housing developer’s advertisement to carry filed statutory particulars, and that filing is public. For this project no such filing is publicly reachable, and the developer publishes none of its own. KPKT’s HIMS files return zero documents for LAVERRA; KPKT’s TEDUH register returns zero documents for LAVERRA; and the developer’s own microsite has no statutory-particulars page in its page table at all — its complete page list is four pages. So rather than pretend to a filing, column A below prints the statutory block as it would be filed, every row marked as what it actually is: not printed. Column B is what the Bursa-listed parent published in its own launch release. Column C is what the developer’s own microsite and the portals publish. Read all three together.
| (A) The statutory advertisement block — as it would be filed | (B) Land & General Berhad — the listed parent’s own launch release | (C) The developer’s own microsite, and the portals |
|---|---|---|
| Nama skim / pemajuan NOT PRINTED — no registered scheme name is published by any source, and no Residensi Laverra exists in any search Pemaju SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD (110516-H) — taken from the developer’s own microsite footer, not from a statutory filing Registration number, 12-digit NOT PRINTED — only the old-format 110516-H is published No. Lesen Pemaju NOT PRINTED ANYWHERE Tempoh sah lesen NOT PRINTED No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan (APDL) NOT PRINTED ANYWHERE Tempoh sah APDL NOT PRINTED — and therefore lapse versus current cannot be assessed: there is no number and no validity period to check Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan pelan bangunan NOT PRINTED — MBPJ is reported by The Edge, not filed No. kelulusan pelan bangunan NOT PRINTED Jenis bangunan NOT PRINTED by the developer. Third parties contradict each other: serviced apartment, service residence, condominium Pegangan tanah Freehold — carried by the launch release, the microsite and every portal; no filed title document has been seen, and no PT or lot number, mukim or daerah is published Jadual Perjanjian (G / H / I / J) NOT PRINTED — do not assume Schedule H Sekatan kepentingan NOT PRINTED · Bebanan / chargee NOT PRINTED Jumlah unit 1,008 per the launch release; not from a filing. Per-block split NOT PRINTED Bilangan tingkat NOT PRINTED by the developer or by L&G Tempat letak kereta NOT PRINTED Keluasan tanah 2.84 acres / 123,710 sq ft — from the release and an agency portal, not from a filing Luas binaan per jenis published as marketing only, not as a filed schedule Tarikh dijangka siap NOT PRINTED in a filing — four different answers across sources Harga jualan unit minima – maksima DOES NOT EXIST in any accessible source Diskaun Bumiputera no field seen, because no filing was seen — nothing to report and nothing withheld | Published 18 May 2026, via Bernama and carried by The Star and StarProperty Developer named in the market Land & General Berhad (196401000184 / 5507-H), Bursa Malaysia Main Market. The licensee that signs the SPA is the subsidiary, Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd Project name used in the release “Damansara Laverra” — not the name on its own microsite Site a 2.84-acre freehold, residential-titled site — the strongest statement available on title category, and it is the listed parent’s own Built form described “freehold high-rise residential development” Units 1,008, in two towers Built-up range 725 – 1,150 sq ft, “layouts of up to four bedrooms” Floor plate 8 – 12 units per floor · 4 lifts per core Gross development value RM752 million Launch-day take-up more than 600 units booked on launch day, about 61% of total units Sibling take-up as at 30 April 2026, the company’s own comparison figures: about 90% for Damansara Livista, 83% for Residensi Kamelia Target completion Q2 2030 MRT Sri Damansara Barat about 500 m, with “a planned covered walkway” — note planned Facilities named in the release a 50-metre lap pool, a water cascade, “Camping by the Sky” People named Low Gay Teck, Managing Director, Land & General Bhd · Chiah Hwa Kai, General Manager, Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd Venue The Flo Sales Gallery Licence or permit particulars NOT PRINTED — the release carries none Storeys NOT PRINTED · Unit split by tower NOT PRINTED · PT / lot NOT PRINTED | Microsite name “Laverra Seri Damansara Residences” — and the parent’s own project index writes “Seri” too Licensee, in the footer of every page SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD (110516-H), “A Subsidiary Of Land & General Berhad”. Unusually, the licensee is printed openly rather than buried — credit where it is due Office address as printed 8trium, Level 18, Menara 1, Jalan Cempaka SD 12/5, Bandar Sri Damansara, 52200 Kuala Lumpur. StarProperty’s developer profile prints Level 21 for the same company Contact as printed 03-6419 9858 · sales@land-general.com Complete page table four pages: the brochure page, a 360 walkthrough, a test page and a thank-you page. No /apdl, no /terms, no /disclaimer, no statutory block anywhere The brochure page itself contains no PDF and no statutory particulars — only the developer’s name, number, address, phone and email Building type NOT STATED AT ALL — not condominium, not serviced apartment, not residential, not commercial Layouts Type A 725 sq ft 2 bed / 2 bath · Type B 905 sq ft 3 bed / 2 bath · Type C 1,150 sq ft 4 bed / 3 bath. Type D appears on its own Tower A floor plate with no specification Facilities published as a graphic, not a text schedule. “Facility Podium @ Level 9” is the only level printed in text Walkway “direct covered walkway to MRT Sri Damansara”, present tense — contradicting its own parent’s “planned” Marketing claim “among the most generous layouts in Sri Damansara & PJ” — published with no comparison set EdgeProp advertorial 1,000 units · 5.21 acres · “freehold serviced apartment” · “low-density floor planning” · completion 2029. Four of those five are contradicted elsewhere, three of them by EdgeProp itself EdgeProp project record “Leverra Sri Damansara”, Petaling Jaya Selangor, Condominium/Apartment, 721 sq ft Type A, 30 April 2029 — and otherwise an empty shell: 0 landed units, 0 non-landed units, RM0 psf, 0 listings, “No Data” comparisons. Its new-launch page separately says 2031. Nothing on it should be relied on PropertyGuru “Damansara Laverra”, Service Residence, Selangor, 40 floors (unsourced), 1,150 sq ft Type C with 2 bathrooms, facilities field = “Parking” only Licence, APDL, approving authority, building plan, completion date, price range NOT PUBLISHED on any of them |
Read the three columns together. Column A is the column that should have been the easiest to fill and is the emptiest: it is the statutory block, and every statutory row in it is blank because no filing for this project could be located anywhere. Column B is the best evidence that exists — a Bursa-listed parent’s own launch release, which is where the 2.84 acres, the 1,008 units, the RM752 million, the Q2 2030 target and, critically, the words “residential-titled” come from. Column C is the marketing, and it is the only one of the three that describes the building and its facilities — while stating no building type at all and contradicting its own parent on the MRT walkway.
No price appears anywhere on this page, and that is deliberate. There is no filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum for this project in any accessible source, so the test this site normally applies — is a marketing figure below the filed statutory minimum? — cannot be run at all. What can be said is this: the asking figures carried by the portals and by individual agent listings are materially inconsistent with the developer’s own published average selling rate, and that inconsistency is carried by at least four independent sources — a portal project record, two separate agent listings from two different agencies, and an agency portal, with a fifth figure on EdgeProp’s new-launch record that is a round number inconsistent with everything else on the project and appears to be placeholder or mis-keyed data. Under my standing policy the only price that may ever appear on one of these pages is the SPA price, and no SPA price range has been filed for Laverra. So this page publishes no figure, and records only that the discrepancy exists. The price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery are where a real, current figure comes from. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Can a foreigner buy at Laverra?
On the weight of evidence this is a Selangor project, and Selangor’s thresholds are the ones to plan against: Zone 1 and Zone 2 — RM2,000,000, and strata property and gated landed strata only. Zone 3, meaning Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — RM1,000,000. For contrast, Kuala Lumpur and the Federal Territory sit at RM1,000,000 with EPU consent — which is exactly why the Selangor-versus-Kuala-Lumpur question on this township is not academic for a foreign buyer: the threshold doubles depending on which answer is right, and no filed document settles it for this project. Daerah Petaling is Zone 1 territory, so plan on RM2,000,000 and strata only. Two further cautions specific to Laverra: the title category is unresolved (residential-titled per the launch release, service residence per the portals), and state consent conditions and any restriction in interest on the land title are not published. Ask me and I will put the zone, the threshold and the title category to the licensee in writing before you commit to anything.
Construction progress — what percentage is built?
No built-percentage figure is published by any source — not by the developer, not by its listed parent, not in any government register. Nor is any dated site progress photograph. What is on the record is the launch on 18 May 2026 and a target completion of Q2 2030. No main contractor, piling contractor, architect or engineer has been identified for Laverra either: no contract award for this project was found on Bursa or in the construction registers, and two near-miss contract awards in this township were checked and eliminated — one belongs to a TA Global unit on the separate Damansara Avenue parcel, the other names a different company and neither names Laverra. Ask me and I will go and look at the site.
What this page does not publish, and why
Louis’s standing policy, applied to every project page on this site: no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera figure, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, and no yield or ROI projection is published here, ever. Those belong in a conversation, where they can be stated accurately, currently and for your specific case rather than scraped off a web page months later. That policy is why the price section above carries no figure even though several are in circulation, and why one third-party advertorial for this project is cited for its errors but not for its commercial wording. Beyond the policy, this page also leaves blank everything no named source published: the APDL number and its validity, the developer licence number and its validity, the approving local authority and the building-plan approval number, the registered scheme name and phase designation, the PT or lot number, the mukim and daerah on a filed document, the title category (residential or commercial), the restriction in interest and any charge over the land, whether the units are HDA housing accommodation and therefore whether Schedule H, statutory liquidated damages, the defect-liability retention and a housing development account apply, the storey count, the unit split between the two towers, the Type D specification, car park allocation and total bays, EV charging, the maintenance and service charge rate and sinking fund, who owns and maintains Senses Park, whether the covered MRT walkway is approved or funded, the main contractor and consultants, the Bumiputera unit allocation and release conditions, ceiling heights, finishes and fitting-out level, and any price band a buyer can rely on. Every one of those is a question I will put to Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd in writing for you.
Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd (110516-H), and the listed parent everyone names instead
The licensed developer of Laverra is SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD, company registration number 110516-H. That name and number are printed in the footer of every page of the project’s own microsite, on the brochure page, and in identical form on both sibling microsites for Livista and Kamelia — four readings, all the same. The Livista pamphlet puts it verbatim: “Developed By: SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD (110516-H) A Subsidiary Of Land & General Berhad.” Credit where it is due: on this project the licensee is printed openly rather than hidden behind a brand, which is more than many developers in this series manage. The 12-digit registration number is not printed anywhere, only the old-format one.
It matters that the licensee is not Land & General Berhad. Every press source, and EdgeProp’s own project record, names the developer as Land & General Berhad — the Bursa Malaysia Main Market company, registration number 196401000184 (5507-H), incorporated 21 May 1964 as Nanyang Holdings Sdn Bhd and renamed from General Lumber (Holdings) Bhd in 1991. L&G is the brand, the listed parent and the company making the public statements. Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd is the company whose name goes on your sale and purchase agreement, whose developer licence you should ask to see, and against which any statutory recourse runs. Ask for the company number on the agreement and check that it reads 110516-H.
One substantive positive, and it is a real one. Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd is an old, established licensee, not a project company incorporated for this launch: 110516-H is a 1980s-era registration, and this is the company behind the township L&G has been building since the mid-1990s. It does not appear in KPKT’s abandoned-project (terbengkalai) lists, which were searched while hunting for its licence serial. That is worth knowing, and it is the strongest comfort point available on this project.
Why the licence number could not be recovered, so you can judge the gap for yourself. L&G does not use one licensee for everything: its Puchong project under MBSJ is licensed to a different subsidiary, Forward Victory Sdn Bhd, under a licence serial that is published in that project’s own KPKT filing. So Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd has a different serial, and it should be shared across Laverra, Livista and Kamelia, all three of which print the same licensee. It was hunted through KPKT’s HIMS files and TEDUH register, through the two sibling microsites, through EdgeProp’s new-launch record (which usually transcribes No. Lesen Pemaju and here prints none), and through the construction registers. Every lead resolved to a different company and was eliminated. The serial was not recovered, and nothing has been substituted for it. Recovering it would unlock all three projects at once, and it is the single most useful thing anyone could ask the sales gallery for.
On awards, the honest answer is that none of them is Laverra’s. Land & General’s own award page lists eight entries: a 1996 FIABCI Malaysia property award for Bandar Sri Damansara, the township; 2013 landscape-architecture awards for Damansara Foresta; a 2016 residential landscape award for Astoria Ampang; a 2018 iProperty award for Damansara Seresta; and four corporate recognitions — Forbes Asia Best Under A Billion 2014, The Edge Malaysia Top 30 developers 2017–2021, Focus Malaysia sustainability reporting 2019, and a Property Insight brand ranking. Not one of them belongs to this project. This page may fairly say that Laverra is by the developer of a township that won a FIABCI Malaysia award in 1996; it may not, and does not, imply Laverra has won anything.
On green certification: none published. GreenRE’s public Gold register was read in full (130 rows) and its Platinum register in full (95 rows), and neither contains Laverra, Livista, Kamelia, Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd or Land & General. The GBI directory contains no entry for any of them either. The developer makes no green, GBI, GreenRE or sustainability claim for Laverra anywhere — no logo, no rating, not even “targeting” wording. Because the Silver, Bronze and Certified tiers were not read, the precise statement is not listed in GreenRE’s Gold or Platinum registers and not in the GBI directory, with no certification claimed by the developer — which is a finding, not an absence of checking.
One last thing about sources, because it affects what you should trust online. The developer markets Laverra from a standalone microsite built by the same web studio that builds the Livista and Kamelia microsites, and that microsite is honest about its licensee and silent about almost everything statutory. Separately, an agent microsite at laverra-residence.com is contaminated with another project’s template: its enquiry-consent text names “Arra Residence” and links its privacy policy to a different project’s domain, and it illustrates all three layouts with a single identical floor-plan image. Nothing on it is treated as independent here. And one more warning worth carrying: EdgeProp lists a separate project also called Kamelia, by KLK Land in Kuala Selangor, which has nothing to do with L&G’s Residensi Kamelia in this township. Before you register anything or send anyone a deposit, come through me.
Licensee and parent particulars read from the developer’s own project microsite and both sibling microsites, from the listed parent’s corporate site and award page, and from the launch release carried by Bernama, The Star and StarProperty, all on 8 October 2026. KPKT HIMS and TEDUH, the GreenRE Gold and Platinum registers and the GBI directory were searched on the same date with no entry found for this project or this licensee. The listed parent’s Bursa announcements are indexed on its investor-relations host but refuse automated retrieval, so the PT or lot number, mukim and tenure remain unrecovered — two specific documents that would most likely settle them are noted for a manual read.
Laverra @ Bandar Sri Damansara — the questions buyers actually ask
Where exactly is Laverra @ Bandar Sri Damansara?
Who is the developer, and is it Land & General?
Is the developer’s licence number and the APDL published?
Is it a condominium on residential title, or a serviced apartment on commercial title?
Does Housing Development Act protection apply to my purchase?
How many units, how many towers, and how many storeys?
Is it really low density?
What layouts are available?
What is the price?
When will it be completed?
How far is the MRT, really?
What is nearby, and can I trust the distances?
What facilities are there, and on which level?
Is it green-certified, or has it won awards?
Is Laverra the same thing as “Livista Phase 2”, and why are there so many names?
What does this page deliberately not publish?
Want the licence and the title category rather than the brochure?
I will send you Land & General Berhad’s own launch release as published, the developer’s own microsite pages as they stand, and the register searches behind this page — and I will put the three things that matter to Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd (110516-H) in writing on your behalf: the APDL number, the developer licence number, and whether the land title is residential or commercial.
Louis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
I work KL and Selangor new launches, and I publish the filed statutory particulars rather than brochure copy — including, as here, where a project five months past a 600-unit launch day has no advertising permit, no developer licence number, no approving authority and no building-plan number published anywhere, and where the developer’s own two documents disagree about the title category, the covered walkway and even the spelling of the name. That is not a reason not to buy. It is a reason to ask three specific questions first, and I will ask them for you in writing. If a figure on this page matters to your decision, ask me for the document it came from and I will send it. If a blank matters, I will go and chase it.
Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from Land & General Berhad’s own launch release of 18 May 2026 as carried by Bernama, The Star and StarProperty; the developer’s own project microsite including its complete page table and its content-management image titles; both sibling project microsites; The Edge Malaysia’s township cover story; EdgeProp and PropertyGuru records and listings; and searches of KPKT HIMS, KPKT TEDUH, the GreenRE Gold and Platinum registers and the GBI directory, all read on 8 October 2026. No filed KPKT advertisement particulars exist in publicly reachable form for this project, and no price is published on this page. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Ask 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: Land & General (3 developments on this site)
Where it is: Bandar Sri Damansara, Selangor