Serai 2 @ Bandar Saujana Utama, Sungai Buloh, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Selangor — 96 double-storey terrace houses on Jadual G, KPKT register code 14533-4: filed statutory band RM802,200 – RM1,073,100, pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak — NO delivery extension, and a developer licence that expires four and a half months BEFORE the advertising permit does

No. They are two separate KPKT registrations under one developer licence. Licence serial 14533 carries five registered projects. Serai 2 is 14533-4, with 96 units. The neighbouring SERAI @SBCR is 14533-3, with 112 units. A third, SERAI 3, is 14533-5 with 90 units, and no consumer source in this research’s sweep lists it at all.

Each one has its own advertising and sales permit, its own permit window, its own building-plan approval, its own unit count, its own filed statutory price range, its own first-agreement date and its own delivery clock. They are siblings in one marketed precinct, on one licence, under one master plan — not phases of a single registration.

What this means for you in practice: no figure from the neighbouring registration applies to Serai 2, and none appears on this page. The developer’s own floor-plan files for the two sit in one directory distinguished by a single filename token, which is exactly how a wrong plan and a wrong price band get onto a page. Get the phase confirmed in writing on anything you are handed.

The figure this page publishes is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price range for register code 14533-4: RM802,200 to RM1,073,100. That comes from the developer’s own legally filed advertisement particulars, which price 83 units at RM802,200 to RM1,073,100 and 13 units at RM850,800 to RM864,900 — and the KPKT register carries the same four endpoints to the ringgit.

That agreement is worth noting, because on these pages it is rarer than it should be. No splice between two permit generations, no leftover panel from an earlier campaign, nothing to reconcile. A property portal’s Starting from RM802,200 equals the filed minimum exactly, with no asterisk and no conditions attached.

What the range is not: it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. It is not the price of any particular lot, and it is not a current asking price. The only documents that state a real contract price are the developer’s price list and your own Jadual G sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Ask Louis for both, for the specific lot you are considering. This page also carries an explicit section on what it does not publish and why — read it, because the omissions are deliberate and they are explained.

No — and it is no on two independent grounds, either of which would be enough on its own.

FIRST, the price threshold. Serai 2 is in Daerah Kuala Selangor, which is Zone 2, and the verified residential foreign-buyer floor for Zone 2 is RM2,000,000. The filed statutory maximum on this project is RM1,073,100 — 53.7% of that floor, and RM926,900 short of it on the dearest unit (this page’s arithmetic). 0 of 96 units clear the threshold. This is not a near-miss and there is nothing to check lot by lot.

SECOND, the title, which bars it regardless of price. This is a Schedule G scheme — sale of land and building, individual title, not strata — the permit tail is -(L) for landed, and both the developer and the portal call it an “individual-titled residential development” in words. Under the Selangor land administration circular of 2014, individual-title landed property is not open to foreign buyers in Selangor at all; only strata and landed-strata schemes are, and even those carry a published condition that the scheme be gated and guarded — which no Serai source evidences, since “smart security” is all any of them says.

One thing you should hear from your own agent: the foreign-buyer guide published by this agency’s own group gives the price threshold and OMITS the title restriction. This page gives both.

Context, and the caveats on the figure itself. The Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur floor is RM1,000,000 with federal consent, so a Selangor project is held to double it. Zone 3, which is Hulu Selangor, is RM1,000,000 and is one district away in the same postal belt. The RM1,500,000 window under the 2020 Selangor circular has EXPIRED and is not current. The state land office publishes no reachable circular of its own, so RM2,000,000 is a three-source consensus rather than a document this page can link — confirm it with the Selangor land office before acting. And a separate point that applies to every buyer: the filed Sekatan Kepentingan means the land cannot be sold, leased, charged or transferred without the State Authority’s consent.

22 September 2027, and no, it has not been moved.

The register’s pjb block gives a first Jadual G sale and purchase agreement of 22 September 2025 and a statutory delivery period of 24 Bulan, so vacant possession falls on 22 September 2027. The register’s pindaanTempohSerahKosong field — the one that records an approved delivery extension — reads Tidak. tempohTambahanDiluluskan, tempohPembinaanBaharu and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama all read -. So there is no approved extension, no revised date, and the original date still governs.

The developer’s own filed target is Ogos 2027 — August 2027, about six weeks EARLIER. A portal says 2027, year only, and the microsite gives no completion date at all. This page prints both and says which is which: the clock that binds the developer, and that determines liquidated damages if it slips, is the agreement date of 22 September 2027. The brochure’s earlier month is a target. Do not let it read as the statutory date.

Progress at 21 October 2026: 56.15% on the 83-unit component and 52.31% on the 13-unit component, Lancar on both, with no CCC and no vacant possession issued on either and no Lewat flag.

The filed figure is 1,877 sq ft for Type A on a 22' x 70' lot, and there are three systems in circulation that do not reconcile.

The strongest figure: the filed advertisement’s keluasan lantai gives 1,877 kps for Jenis A on a 22' x 70' lot, and the developer’s own microsite gives 1,877 sq ft on the same lot — two surfaces, one of them the statutory filing, identical to the square foot.

A portal gives 1,872 and 2,044 sq ft. The 1,872 is five square feet off the filed figure — a rounding or transcription difference, not a different house.

The register files 153 and 163 square metres, and they match nothing. 153 m² is 1,647 sq ft, two hundred and thirty square feet smaller than the filed built-up for the very type the filing describes on the very same lot. 163 m² is 1,754.9 sq ft, which matches no published figure at all. And they are not the lot areas either: 22' x 70' is 1,540 sq ft, or 143.1 m², and 24' x 70' is 1,680 sq ft, or 156.1 m². All conversions in this answer are this page’s own.

One thing that does line up: the filing prices 83 units in one band and 13 in another and prints exactly two lot sizes; the register splits 83 at 153 and 13 at 163. So the smaller register figure attaches to the smaller lot, which is at least consistent with keluasan being a land area measured to title rather than a built-up — and that is as far as the evidence goes.

And one trap worth knowing: the portal’s project-level 1,647 sqft IS the register’s 153 m² converted. Treating the two as independent sources would be counting a single number twice.

What would settle it: the Third Schedule of your own Jadual G sale and purchase agreement, which states the built-up and the land area per lot as contracted, or the developer’s full electronic brochure, whose own web address is not exposed on the microsite.

Three sources give two answers, and this page does not pick one. The developer’s own microsite says Type B has 3 bedrooms. A property portal says 4. The KPKT register says 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms for all 96 units.

Two against one — but the register’s figure is a per-project summary field, not a per-type statement, so it is not proof per type and it would be wrong to count it as a second independent source.

The gap is worse than the contradiction. No source publishes a built-up for Type B, no source publishes a lot size for it, and the second filed lot dimension of 24' x 70' appears in the filed advertisement unattached to any type at all. Ask for the Type B floor plan, its built-up, its lot size and its bedroom count in writing before you view it.

None are filed to this registration, and that is the honest answer rather than a dodge. There is no filed facilities schedule, because this is a landed terrace scheme with no common building. Everything published is PRECINCT or TOWNSHIP infrastructure, and no source publishes a single facility as belonging to 14533-4.

At precinct level, four surfaces name a 6.6-acre central park and lake, with a multipurpose court, jogging and bicycle tracks, a children’s playground, a reflexology area, an open picnic lawn and a gazebo viewing deck. One surface and only one names a 2.5-acre retention pond. The microsite calls the green node and lake “within walking distance” and publishes no figure, so this page publishes none.

At township level, the microsite names SU Mall Commercial Centre, the township’s existing mall, with no distance.

Two things to be clear about. The precinct’s two commercial plots — Chendana 1 at 0.6 acre and Chendana 2 at 3 acres — are outside this registration and were sold to individual buyers, so whatever is built on them is not the developer’s commitment. And “smart security” is a bare two-word phrase on the microsite: no source says what it is, who installs it, whether the scheme is gated and guarded, who builds a guardhouse or who pays to run it after the CCC. This page does not list it as a facility.

And nobody publishes who maintains the 6.6-acre park after completion, or what it will cost residents. That is on the list to ask.

It is low, and the best evidence for that is not a number — it is the developer explaining why.

Glomac’s Chief Operating Officer (Operations), Zulkifly Garib, is on the record that “Infrastructure here does not support high-rise developments”, and that high-rise development is not permitted here under the zoning. So the low density is a planning limit, not a design claim, and that is a more useful thing for a buyer to know than any units-per-acre figure.

Which is just as well, because Serai 2’s density cannot be computed. 14533-4’s own site area is not published by any source — the filing gives only the two lot dimensions, and the register’s keluasan is a per-unit figure whose meaning is itself disputed. So this page prints no density figure for Serai 2.

The published 7.5 units per acre is not it. 374 units across about 64 acres is 5.84 per acre gross; taking out the park, the pond and the commercial plots gives 7.29 per acre (both this page’s arithmetic), which is the only reading that lands near 7.5. So that figure is a net, whole-precinct number spanning four phases, two third-party-owned commercial plots and two unbuilt parcels. It is not this project’s density and this page does not print it as one.

Daerah Kuala Selangor, and it matters because it sets the foreign-buyer zone and because “Sungai Buloh” spans three districts.

Three converging legs, with nothing left unadjudicated. The filed building-plan reference is BIL(24)DLM.MPKS200.11/280/4/13/2024-01 — an MPKS prefix. The same document names the approving authority in words as MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KUALA SELANGOR. And the register’s own daerah field reads Kuala Selangor on all five registrations under this licence. Prefix, named authority and register agree.

Why the warning was warranted. The postcode is 47000 Sungai Buloh and every marketing surface says Sungai Buloh — but that name covers Kuala Selangor under MPKS, Petaling under MBSA and Gombak under MPS. Zone 1 and Zone 2 happen to share the RM2,000,000 floor, so assuming Petaling would have produced the right number for the wrong reason — and Zone 3, at RM1,000,000, is one district away in the same postal belt. The reasoning has to be right even when the answer would have been.

The mukim is NOT FILED and this page does not infer one. Mukim Ijok is what this research has established for the Kuala Selangor portion of this belt, and the Selangor controlled-price list files every Kuala Selangor row under IJOK. That makes Mukim Ijok a reasonable expectation and nothing more. It is not filed for this project. The lot or PT number is not published either — and those two are the first things a bank valuer and a conveyancing lawyer will ask you for.

Not in this registration. There is one in the PRECINCT, it is real, and it is not registered, licensed or filed yet.

Serai 2 itself: the filing and the register carry no affordable row, no controlled-price row and no Harga Mampu Milik row. Both filed components are Rumah Teres, 4 bed / 3 bath, banded above RM800,000. There is no one-bedroom or small-area type hiding inside the register either — that test was run and came back clean.

The Selangor controlled-price list was read in full and holds no row for this project, this township, this precinct or this licensee. Its Kuala Selangor section holds five rows, all in Mukim Ijok, all by other developers. Because that list carries only stock currently open for application, absence from it is not by itself a negative — it is decisive only alongside the register and the filing, which is how it is used here.

The precinct’s affordable component: apartments under affordable housing schemes are counted inside the 374-unit precinct total, on two reserved parcels, and a portal records that “details will be announced later”. Licence 14533 carries five registrations and ALL FIVE are Rumah Teres — so nothing is registered, licensed or filed for those apartments. They are a future neighbour on a registration that does not yet exist. This page does not describe them as built or approved, and it does not read any affordable-scheme restriction across onto a Serai 2 buyer.

For completeness, and because it is the question people conflate with this one: the eligibility rules and the five-year transfer restriction that sit at the end of the Selangor controlled-price document apply to controlled-price units. Serai 2 is not one, so none of that binds a Serai 2 buyer.

Because nothing we could verify as being THIS phase is published anywhere, and an uncaptioned or wrongly-captioned image is worse than no image.

Three findings between them close it. The developer’s project microsite is the only surface carrying Serai 2 imagery at all — and it is a static site with no content management system, so it publishes no captions and exposes no image dimensions. Nothing there can be confirmed as to subject, and nothing there can be measured. The group’s own media library IS measurable and every single “Serai” asset in it is a newspaper press photograph, credited to national newspapers — the dimensions are fine and the rights are not. And the floor-plan files for the two neighbouring registrations sit in ONE directory distinguished by a single filename token, so a single dropped character would put the neighbour’s plan, built-up and lot size on this page.

So nothing was uploaded and nothing is shown. No map graphic, no locality map, no logo, no icon set and no stock lifestyle image has been substituted to fill the gap, and nothing has been borrowed from the neighbouring phase, from the township developer or from another project on the same licence.

Fourteen other pages in this series ship the same way. The weight of this page is in the statutory spine, the filed particulars, the gaps named with the document that would close each one, and the contradictions printed rather than resolved — all of which is text, and none of which needs a picture. Ask Louis for a site visit and a show-unit viewing, and for the developer’s own images with written confirmation of which phase each one shows.

There was, and this page is not going to pretend otherwise.

On 3–4 January 2025 a retention or catchment pond burst and flooded homes in the Sungai Buloh area. The Chinese-language report the developer itself republishes puts it at close to 200 households. The developer published a statement — three times on its own site — that the incident had nothing to do with its Bandar Saujana Utama development, stating that it happened in a neighbouring taman and that the pond involved is not inside its development area.

What is NOT established: no authority is named in that statement, no independent finding is quoted in it, and no independent investigation outcome is published anywhere this research could reach. This page asserts no blame in either direction.

Why it is on the page at all. This precinct is marketed on a 6.6-acre lake park and contains its own 2.5-acre retention pond. A buyer in this specific locality will already have seen the January 2025 coverage, and a page that publishes the lake and the pond as amenities while saying nothing about this would not be straight with its reader.

What to do about it: ask for the approved drainage and retention-pond plan for this precinct, and walk the drainage on site in the rain if you can. That is a real answer; a reassuring sentence from anybody, including this page, is not.

No, no, and the developer does not claim either — which deserves saying, because plenty do.

The group’s own accolades page carries roughly forty-five entries from 1995 to 2024, and Serai, Serai 2, SBCR and Sungai Buloh Country Resort appear nowhere on it. Bandar Saujana Utama appears only as a location, with no award. There is no award badge on the microsite and none in either published article.

Three awards would be borrowed if nobody refused them by name, so here they are. The PIPDA 2019 Best Affordable Township award belongs to SAUJANA PERDANA — one word away from Saujana Utama, the same developer, the same locality, and “affordable township” is exactly this precinct’s pitch. It is not this project’s. The StarProperty Awards 2023 Starter Home Award for the best primary landed home development in Greater Kuala Lumpur belongs to Primrose, Saujana KLIA, in Sepang — same developer, same prefix, same product class, different district and different township. And a 2004 Johor state landscape prize belongs to Sri Saujana, in Johor. Corporate and personal honours to the group and its directors are not project awards and this page does not write them as though they were.

On green certification the zero is unusually well evidenced. No GreenRE, GBI, Green Mark, LEED or QLASSIC logo or wording appears on any Serai surface, in the filing, in the register, on the portal or in either article. All four GreenRE tiers were read; the Platinum tier returned complete and untruncated with no match; and the Bronze certification-entry list was read over a window that BRACKETS this project’s permit and first-agreement dates, so there is no earlier record for the search to have missed. The group’s own accolades page names no GreenRE, GBI, Green Mark, LEED or QLASSIC for any project in any year, so this is not a case of certifying through a different scheme. One group-level Bronze exists for an unrelated non-residential asset in another district under a different licensee; “the group holds a GreenRE Bronze” is true at group level and false at project level, and this page does not borrow it. The word “sustainable” appears once on a Serai surface, in ordinary marketing copy, and a bare adjective is not a certification and not even a stated target.

Twelve things, and here they all are in one table. The right-hand column says what this page did about each — and “UNRESOLVED” is a finding, not a gap. Where two of the developer’s own documents disagree, picking one and presenting it as the answer would be the dishonest option.

Two further items belong to the neighbouring registration rather than to Serai 2, and are recorded only so that nobody rediscovers them and attaches them here: its own published built-ups disagree across three surfaces, and so do its published lot sizes. No figure from that registration appears on this page.

Yes — the developer licence, on 15 December 2026. Put it in a diary.

The developer licence is 14533/12-2026/1440(A), valid 16 December 2023 to 15 December 2026 — the register and the filed advertisement agree on the number and on both dates. The advertising and sales permit is 14533-4/04-2027/0335(A)-(L), valid 30 April 2025 to 29 April 2027. So the licence expires four and a half months BEFORE the permit does.

Neither is lapsed today and a renewal is the normal course. statusPemaju reads Aktif and mempunyaiKesalahan reads null, so no offence is flagged against the licensee. But a permit is not a licence, and this page will not let the longer date read as though it covered both. Re-check both on the KPKT register on the day you act, by the code 14533-4.

And one thing about the permit that is worth knowing: it appears on this page only because the register prints it. The developer’s own filed advertisement files the permit number as the literal placeholder XXXXXXXXX and its validity as XXXX hingga XXXX. From the filing alone, nobody could tell whether this project’s permit was live, expired or never issued. Note also that the register gives the same permit two suffixes — (A) on the live project field, which is what this page publishes, and (N) on its only history row, same number and same window, with that row’s own status reading Aktif. The same inversion appears on another live registration under this licence, so it looks like a register-wide pattern rather than an error in this record. This page prints it and does not resolve it.

Schedule G — Jadual G — and the difference is individual title.

The register’s pjb.jenis reads Jadual G, and the advertising permit’s own product tail is -(L) for landed, which confirms it independently. Schedule G is the statutory contract for a house sold together with the land it stands on — so you get an individual title, not a strata parcel, no management corporation and no common property.

The Housing Development Act protections reach the whole scheme either way: the prescribed statutory contract, the liquidated-damages regime, the section 7A housing development account, the statutory defect liability period running from vacant possession, and access to the Housing Tribunal.

Two consequences specific to this project. First, it is the title leg that bars foreign purchase in Selangor regardless of price — see the foreign-buyer answer above. Second, the filed Sekatan Kepentingan conditions every transfer, lease and charge on the State Authority’s consent, whoever the buyer is, and Maybank Islamic is the registered chargee on the land. All 96 units are HDA residential on this one registration: no office suites, no SOHO, no strata and no commercial parcel inside it.

Eight documents. Every one of them is something no reachable public source publishes.

1. The price list for the specific lot, and the Jadual G sale and purchase agreement itself. 2. The Third Schedule of that agreement, which states the built-up and the land area per lot as contracted — that is what settles the three built-up systems. 3. The Type B floor plan, with its built-up, its lot size and its bedroom count in writing. 4. The car-park bay count per type from the approved building plan — nobody publishes a number. 5. The Housing Development Account number and bank — the string HDA is absent from the filed advertisement entirely, and that is the account your progress payments are supposed to go into. 6. The lot or PT number and the mukim, from the title or the local authority’s plan file. 7. The “smart security” specification, whether the scheme is gated and guarded, who builds the guardhouse and who funds it after the CCC. 8. The approved drainage and retention-pond plan for this precinct, and who maintains the 6.6-acre park after completion and at what cost.

And one check you can do yourself, today, for nothing: search the KPKT register by the code 14533-4 — not by any name — and read the licence validity, the permit validity, pindaanTempohSerahKosong and peratusSiap for yourself. Everything on this page can be checked that way, which is the point of printing the code.