In the case, a couple purchased a large villa, built in 1892, with garden, enjoying unobstructed views over the valley, in a small town in the department of Haute Garonne.

Over a decade later, a local development company submitted a planning application for the demolition of an existing 800m2 building on an adjacent plot, and for the construction of a 30-unit apartment block, with a height of nearly 16 metres.

Whilst new developments could not, under local planning rules, exceed the height of the highest semi-detached building in the area, the height of the proposed development complied with this rule. Indeed, it was less than the ridge height of the villa.

The planning consent was granted, subject to compliance with certain architectural requirements.

The couple complained to the developer about loss of sunshine, proximity of the development to their property and loss of privacy. The proposed development contained 42 windows that gave straight, overhead views of their property, some to the garden, others to the gable end.

As a result, the developer submitted a fresh planning application, reducing the height of the proposed building. The application was approved.

This did not satisfy the couple who brought an action in the courts claiming that the development was an abnormal neighbour nuisance (trouble anormal de voisinage) due to loss of view, sunshine and privacy.

In court the judges ruled that the benefit of an unobstructed view could not constitute an acquired right in an area of continuous settlement, which makes the construction of new buildings foreseeable.

The disturbance resulting from the partial deprivation of view due to the new building could not in these conditions be considered to exceed the normal inconveniences of having neighbours.

The same applied to the deprivation of sunshine, which would be reduced in the middle of the afternoon.

Nevertheless, the court considered that the creation of six balconies (2 metres from the boundary of the couple's property) with a direct view of the couple’s garden, when the razed building did not have balconies, created a detriment to the couple amounting to a loss of privacy.

This disadvantage exceeded the normal inconveniences of having neighbours and reduced the market value of the couple's property.

The court considered that the reduction in the value of their property amounted to €15,000 (on a property valued at €260,000) being the damages payable by the developer. The award was substantially below the sum sought by the plaintiffs.

Tom Easdown, of planning and architectural consultants French Plans comments that: "Overlooking rules are different in France to the UK and other countries and, as can be seen in this case, even if there is a perceived overlooking problem it isn't always a reason for a refusal of an application."