The covenant included in early indentures can be seen in the
reference section and the covenant is fully explained in its own chapter.

However, a document duly signed by many plot owners and dated 12 January 1870 released the original covenant which restricted building to only one property - double or single - per plot. It then established a new covenant whereby each of the 30 building plots were now allowed either one double or two single properties.

Only one certified copy of this Covenant Release document is known to exist - it is dated 18 Dec 1874.

The assumption is that the Release document is between all the plot owners at that time however this is not specifically stated. Most of the current owners deeds that have been seen refer to the 1870 covenant. To date it is only the deeds for plot 19 - The Cedars - which was sold for building in 1933 that makes no reference to the 1870 revised covenant but rather refers to the early 1857 covenant. Surprising since William Shone was the holder of the 1870 revision and he had interests in plot 19 right up to 1919.

Six days after signing the 1870 revision Pitt; who on 1 Oct 1869 had just sold his property on part of plot 16; sold much of the unused plot 16 to William Beswick who then built a single property (no:80). The conveyance "Pitt to Beswick" shows the existing property as a single but the first OS survey in 1872 shows it still as a double. If it was still a double then this appears to be in total defiance of the new covenant.
Pitt may have either already converted the existing property (no:84) into a single or covenanted the new owner - David Horsefield - so to do. No record is known of any such conversion until after the survey of 1898 See OS surveys

Millside no:84 is known to have been a single property since 1920 and believed to have been so since the late 1800s. So the evidence is conflicting as to whether it actually was a double that was made a single as part of the 1870 release of covenant agreement.

Why was the covenant released and a revision agreed ? -
• surely the legality and cost (nearly £2 in stamp duty) of the release would have been better used to split plot 16 into two plots if the only need was two singles on plot 16.
• why the need to build again on plot 16 while so many other plots were vacant ?
• did the other plot owners really see this as a benefit to them when none of them actually made use of it

Whatever the reasoning for the rethink of covenant the interesting fact is that other than for the building of Westview (no:80) the revision of the covenant was not exploited again for nearly a century.

The perpetrator
Maybe Pitt had great foresight of the building demands a century later - if he did some later proprietors are greatful to him while others wish the original rules had stayed !. Pitt had built and owned Hawthorne Villas (no:19) and Chatham Villas (nos:23/25) - both near the head of the now established tree-lined Avenue. He left the Park a few years later seemingly having sold or mortgaged all his interests in the Park and some evidence suggests not a wealthy man. (for more on Pitt see People of the Park

A final point
It is not known today whether all the then current plot and subplot owners signed the Release of Covenant document - although the document implies this - No Dickson for example !.

Assumption down the years has been that for all those covenanted plots remaining in the Park; this revised covenant applies - except apparently the deeds of The Cedars which gives no mention to the 1870 change.

The 'Release of Covenant' document is fully titled as 'Release of Covenant as to the Houses to be erected on the Upton Park Estate and new covenant in lieu thereof'.