It might help you to start thinking about collating evidence ready for an appeal (I would hold off submitting SARs though) and getting your grounds of appeal ready so that when you get the finalised EHCP, you can get the mediation certificate (you should appeal B&F as well as I), tweak your case and submit to SENDIST ASAP. When you get the finalised EHCP, if you don’t have to appeal, great, but if you do, you are ready to go ASAP.
If your preferred placement is a state SS, there are limited reasons naming it can be refused. These are:
-The setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs of the child or young person; or
-The attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others; or
-The attendance of the child or young person would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.
You will find it helpful to read of some of the case law surrounding incompatibility. For example, OO and BO v London Borough Bexley [2023] UKUT 223 (AAC), NA v London Borough of Barnet (SEN) [2010] UKUT 180 (AAC) and Hampshire County Council v R & SENDIST [2009] EWHC 626 (Admin) (2009) ELR 371 and M v LB Harrow HS/4850/2013. The Noddy guide summarises some case law if you want a good starting point for a summary.
Then, when the LA finalises, if they don’t name your preferred placement on incompatibility grounds, you should ask for specifics. Not the vague waffle LAs usually try to rely on. So, what other pupils? What incompatibility? Is it really incompatibility with efficient education or only incompatibility with providing an education in excess of what is considered an efficient standard of education? Could anything reasonably overcome the incompatibility?
Have you spoken to your preferred placement and any others you know/suspect may have been consulted? That way, you ensure they have accurate information and the full picture. LAs don’t always provide this when they consult placements.