From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

(1848) CB 430 (HL). The owner of land in Leicester Square had convenanted with neighbouring landowners to 'keep the park uncovered with buildings'. At common law, the Covenant was enforceable only between the original parties to the covenant, just as a Contract would be. When the land was sold, the purchaser wished to build on it, despite his knowledge of the covenant. It was held that it would be inequitable to allow him to do so. This established that the burden of a covenant which was restrictive in nature (see restrictive covenant) could 'run with the land', despite Privity of contract. For the burden to run, the covenant had to 'touch and concern' the land, rather than being for the benefit of a particular person, and it had to be intended that the covenant bind the land.

Note that this principle applies only if the covenants are restrictive, not positive, and this is a matter of substance, not form, To 'keep the park uncovered' sounds like a positive obligation, but in substance it is a prohibition.