The media and some activists may have failed to read and understand the recent HMIC review 'Adapting to Protest', but it looks as though the Met is interpreting its recommendations for its own ends.
Regarding communication by the police in public order situations, the review recommends (pg 82):
A ‘no surprises’ communication philosophy should be adopted: ongoing communication should be maintained with all relevant stakeholders throughout the operational planning stages and during the event itself. Protesters and the public should be made aware of likely police action in order to make informed choices and decisions.In other words, it places obligations on the police to be clear about their actions - it doesn't require protest groups to enter into formal negotiations prior to a protest.
This press release from the Met on the need for 'dialogue with Climate Camp' therefore misrepresents the HMIC review, suggesting that it says "that police and protest groups should enter into constructive dialogue ensuring there are no surprises in the policing operation or the demonstration." It doesn't say that at all. This seems like another attempt to create the impression that all protest should always be 'signed off' by the police before it can take place, because 'self-kettled protest' is exactly what the police wants.
If Camp for Climate Action don't want to tell the Met's Superintendent Julia Pendry where their planned action will take place after Saturday's Wave demonstration, then that is their decision and Pendry will have to learn to deal with the disappointment.
Quite why Climate Camp have been prepared to volunteer 'a list of four boroughs they may go to' is beyond me, though.