3.17 The Government accepts this recommendation and will clarify this point in the final revised NPSP. 3.18 Up to now, no ports applications have been directed into the DCO process under s.35, nor has any applicant requested it, but the possibility continues to exist – particularly in view of the fact that offshore wind developments are unlikely, viewed for that purpose alone, to exceed the current thresholds at s.24 of the Act, and as there is currently no specified threshold for passenger traffic. 3.19 We have noted views expressed in consultation, and to the Committee, about the coverage of the current thresholds in s.24. The mechanism for potential change of, or addition to, these thresholds would be a statutory instrument, rather than any reference in the NPSP – which, however, must and does stress the need for port capacity to support the clean energy Mission. 3.20 We will separately review the s.24 thresholds and, if the Secretary of State deems it appropriate, consider amending them through the SI process as prescribed. 3.21 The judgment1 held, in the context of particular applications relating to energy from waste schemes, that an application that had been directed into the DCO process under s.35 as a “project of national significance”, nevertheless should be considered under s.105 rather than s.104 PA08. This asserted a distinction from a “nationally significant infrastructure project”. Unless and until the Planning Act is amended in relation to this judgment, applicants and examining authorities will need to take account of it where the capacity of the project in question falls below the applicable s.24 thresholds at the time. 3.22 The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 has introduced a new section 35B under which, in specified circumstances, the Secretary of State may give a direction that development consent is not required for development in question, but that it should instead be considered under an alternative consenting regime. We do not know whether any requests for such a direction will arise in the case of port applications. If it does, the likeliest (but not the only possible) alternative regime would be a harbour 1 EFW Group v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, [2021] EWHC 2697 (Admin). National Policy Statement for Ports: revision or empowerment order coupled with one or more marine licences and possibly other ancillary processes. National Policy Statement for Ports: 4. Design policy