Floor plan tube house L-shape triangular plot including oak tree

I think I would sue.

I probably would too, but in public. Something like 113 trees next door, well, but now make an example of my one. After all, an elected official can't openly say the argument "million-dollar project."

... but on my ...

It's not his. It's on public ground. It could be relevant for obtaining public approval.

the 1.20 m approved in the building permit

Show what was approved there. Maybe the floor plan experts here can redesign something acceptable for you from it. Or at least raise questions that you can still ask the building service or the neighbor. And if in the end, after all compromises, a floor plan comes out that can only keep one or half a meter distance to the tree, then the architect should also succeed in convincing the environmental office of the found solution with clever, detailed words.

That it can be "somehow" built with a makeshift solution has now been demonstrated several times. The 30 cm less in the distance radius also does not change anything essential anymore. What is needed now is a capable and creative architect who puts a few variants on paper. Either there is a usable house among them or there isn't. If not: sell the plot and keep looking.

Because one must not forget one thing: one wants to live there for a lifetime. But one should not be annoyed for a lifetime, after all, you burn through a large part of your lifelong human capital when building a house.

You can download the application to fell or cut protected trees.

Should I try this and rely on the expropriating effect? Or does this argument only make sense in court? In short: Can you sue against the rejection of this application?

Or do I first have to submit a building application without a tree or with a smaller protection distance in order to be able to sue against the rejection notice?

Has the previous owner already tried something similar? I would check that first.

Or do I first have to submit a building application without a tree or with a smaller protection distance, in order to be able to sue against the rejection notice?

That would be highly pointless: if a tree that remains protected opposes the construction project, the rejection of the building application would be beyond reproach.

Here you can download the application to fell or prune protected trees: [ Link ] Should I try this and invoke the expropriative effect? Or does this argument only make sense in court? In short: Is it possible to sue against the rejection of this application?

You need legal advice on when it is best to bring up the argument of the expropriative effect. If it is not initially included in the felling application, it cannot be questioned or used as a reason for rejection. In any case, a notice is an administrative act and can be challenged before the administrative court. Violations of principles such as equal treatment or the binding nature of discretion would also be suitable grounds for appeal. But I am expressing my personal opinion here; business consultants do not provide legal advice.