Concerns over potential public nuisance from late-night alcohol sales at the new London Museum have been raised by a local resident, though the museum and the Greater London Authority (GLA) have argued the venue will bring significant cultural and economic benefits to the area.
The Licensing (Hearing) Sub Committee of the City of London Council met on Wednesday 28 October 2026 to consider an application for a premises licence for the new London Museum in Smithfield. The museum sought authorisation for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment, and late-night refreshment on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week.
While the GLA supported the application, highlighting the museum's potential to boost London's cultural and economic landscape and create jobs, a resident, Mr Greg Callus, expressed concerns about potential public nuisance arising from late-night alcohol sales, particularly on weeknights. Mr Callus's primary concern regarding public nuisance centres on public exposure, public urination are capable of constituting criminal offences. But primarily I'm talking about this through the lens of public nuisance. It is a natural part of living in a city and appropriately so that if you live right in zone one around bars and restaurants. I have some wonderful pubs on my street. You should tolerate a certain degree of public nuisance. People will throw up on your garage door from time to time. People will urinate in your doorway from time to time. Such are the facts of living in zone one. It's a privilege to live here. The question is the extent of which that public nuisance gets out of control.
He suggested limitations on the frequency of events involving alcohol sales after midnight during the week and after 2am on weekends, proposing a cap of 25 events per year for up to 500 people and five events for over 500 people with later alcohol sales.
Mr Callus stated that while he was not opposed to the museum's general plans or its operation as a 24-hour venue, his primary concern was the extent to which late-night weekday events with alcohol service could lead to unreasonable public nuisance for residents. He believes that Anyone is capable of being a noisy idiot when they've been allowed to drink until four or five o'clock in the morning.
The applicant noted that the museum aims to serve 25% of London workers working between the hours of 6pm and 6am
and wants to offer events for key workers, such as those at Bart's Hospital.
The applicant's representatives argued that imposing such limits would hinder their ability to programme a full cultural and commercial calendar and create uncertainty for event planning. They emphasised their commitment to managing dispersal and public nuisance through bespoke risk assessments
, a dispersal policy, and collaboration with responsible authorities. The museum has also committed to having a noise management plan
to identify how noise arising from all sources of noise including regulated entertainment, plant, PA systems and patrons shall be effectively controlled and how any complaints of noise will be dealt with. They also stated that There will be a generic dispersal plan, a generic noise management plan. But everything will be bespoke. So it depends where we are egressing from the premises as to where we how we manage that. Obviously we will be sensitive to where the residential uses are.
The committee heard detailed arguments from all parties. Councillor Tim McNally questioned the objector on the nature of the public nuisance concerns, while Councillor Stephanie Steeden acknowledged the validity of residents' concerns.
The GLA highlighted the museum's potential to make a major contribution to London's culture, tourism and economy and support the mayor's vision for a 24 hour London
. The museum is expected to attract around 2 million visitors annually and create approximately 2,000 jobs and training opportunities, making a major contribution to London's culture, tourism and economy.
The GLA also stated that Economic benefits are not an additional licensing objective. There are consideration for the licensing authority to weigh where, as here, the application is not expected to undermine the licensing objectives. And in this case, the GLA's view is that the application presents a clear opportunity to support a major cultural institution, facilitate economic growth, broaden London's cultural and nighttime offer and contribute positively to the continued success of Smithfield as a vibrant 24 hour destination.
The applicant cited the nearby nightclub Fabric as an example of a venue operating with a 24-hour licence and a large capacity, stating, Fabric has a 24 hour license and a large capacity. Even Mr Callus in his own words accepts that fabric doesn't cause a problem.
The GLA also mentioned Fabric in relation to partnerships and the 24-hour economy, noting established partnerships between City of London, the nearby Fabric Nightclub and the London Museum, which presents an excellent opportunity to work together in a coordinated way to ensure a safe and welcoming environment.
The application sought authorisation for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment, and late-night refreshment on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. The resident's objection was specifically related to late-night alcohol sales. The proposed hours for late night refreshment in the application were Monday to Sunday from 23:00 to 05:00, and for regulated entertainment (live music, recorded music, performances of dance, plays, films) were Monday to Sunday from 00:00 to 00:00. The applicant stated that they could not commit to a specific number of late-night events
as they did not yet know what that number would be.
The committee deliberated on the application and stated that a decision would be communicated in writing within five working days. The exact conditions of any potential licence were not detailed in the transcript. The full details of the application can be found in the Public reports pack for the meeting, which also included the Agenda frontsheet.