Bialy - maybe 
tbh, we went in hard and fast - right from the start contact was via our solicitors, and we had the same team lined up (and made sure the LA knew it) as we had last year when our case was, as our ABA cons and EP (notoriously anti ABA) put it "as strong an argument as we have ever seen for needing an ABA school".
AT - Surrey. not known for it's ABA friendliness, although they are not entirely ant either. the biggest hurdle is avoiding their own "flagship" ASD provisions.
we have not been without our fights though, and arrived where we are via 3 house moves, abandoning a hopeless LA mid-statement, and by leaving dd1 in a so-called excellent provision, approved and funded by Surrey, where she was written off as unable to learn, was entirely mute for the whole time she was there, and where we were told we were unrealisitc in our expectations of wanting proof that dd1 was actually learning anyhting, as we "might have to accept that dd1 will never learn anythign at school" 
- this said by the head teacher of said amazing establishment... dd1 was there for just over a year, and regressed awfully while she was there. it was a horrid, horrid time for us all, and the only way I could keep her there was with the thought that each day she was regressing there, and being seen as unteachable, nd not achieving the woefully easy targets on her IEP that did not change over the entore year, depsite her not being "able" to achieve them, was another small link forged in our argument.
and now we can (sort of) relax again for a bit. dd1 is looking forward to her new school (she has already been and seen it, and had an assessment), although I am sure we will have a few weeks of upset when she realises she really is not going back to her old school.