The charms of rural life attract many of us buy a property in France, but the pleasures of the countryside are accompanied by their own risks and drawbacks.

In a country which is almost defined by farming, it does mean compromising with some unpleasant agricultural activities which come with pastoral charm.

Planning laws are strongly weighed in favour of agriculture, which in rural areas is the cornerstone of local economic development policies.

That does not inevitably mean that property owners should lie awake at night worrying about the prospect of a new pig farm on their doorstep.

Despite the caricature image of French farmers, most are aware of possible nuisance and they have no wish to upset their neighbours.

Nevertheless, even when a farmer makes an effort, some farming activities can be uncomfortably close and annoying.

Where a conflict does arise it is possible to take legal action on grounds of nuisance, despite the fact that planning consent for the activity is in place.

Indeed, the courts are full of cases where neighbours have objected to the nuisance caused by a farming activity.

In response to the growing number of complaints, last year several politicians from rural communities introduced a bill that sought to give greater protection from legal action to farmers.

That bill has now become law, but in a substantially modified form, encompassing not only agricultural activities, but also nuisance arising from industrial and commercial operations.

The new law is based on well-established jurisprudence, enshrining in statute the principles on which judges have based their decisions regarding complaints about neighbour nuisance.

The code makes it clear that those who carry out a business activity have a responsibility to respect their neighbours, stating:

“The owner, the tenant, the occupant without title, the beneficiary of a title whose main purpose is to authorize them to occupy or exploit land, the contracting authority or the person exercising their powers who is the cause of a disturbance exceeding the normal inconveniences of the neighborhood shall be liable by operation of law for the damage resulting therefrom."

However, liability for abnormal neighbourhood disturbances is accompanied by the exception of "pre-occupation" of the activity, a principle which had already been widely adopted in case law.

What this exception states is that where the activity pre-dated occupation of the property by the complainant then no redress is ordinarily available, PROVIDED the activity continued under the same conditions and in accordance with the regulations.

In the new law there is also a particular dispensation for agricultural activities, although the clause does not appear to differ in any material way from the general exemption.

Thus, the principle of pre-occupation and compliance with laws are retained for such activities, and as regards the evolution of the farming activity it must be carried out under conditions resulting from the bringing of the exercise of those activities into conformity with the law and without substantial change in their nature or intensity. The assessment of the substantial nature of the modification of the conditions for the exercise of the activity will be left to the court.

According to the parliamentary committee which considered the clause, the objective of this measure is to "respond to the case of a farmer who is liable for an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance resulting from the modification of the conditions under which his/her activity is carried out because of the need to bring his/her farm into compliance with mandatory standards, which are particularly numerous and demanding in the agricultural field, the commission has provided for a specific exonerating cause: as soon as a farm modifies the conditions of its activity to bring them into line with laws and regulations, the resulting abnormal disturbance would not be liable to engage the liability of the operator."

Whether it achieves this objective, and thereby lets off the hook a farmer who intensifies an activity is a mood point. Most legal experts consider that the clause is weak and will make little difference to how judges will consider cases of nuisance from farming activities. In effect, the law only grants a right to farmers to make minor changes in the nature of their existing activities.

They also point out that, notwithstanding the change in French law, complainants retain the right to invoke protection under the European Convention on Human Rights, under the provisions of a right to respect their private and family life. On verra.