March 2026 should have killed the myth that petrol stations are sensible “future infrastructure”. Oil markets are still swinging on Middle East supply fears, with Brent crude back above US$100 a barrel today. In Australia, the ACCC’s own data shows how brutally that kind of instability reaches the bowser: average petrol prices across the five largest capitals were 180.4 cents per litre in the December 2025 quarter, but by 11 March they had jumped to 219.7 cents per litre. Over that same late-February to mid-March period, the Singapore Mogas 95 benchmark that underpins Australian petrol pricing rose by about 38 cents per litre in Australian-dollar terms. The ACCC was concerned enough to shift to weekly monitoring and publicly warn fuel retailers over pricing behaviour.
That matters because it exposes the central lie behind new petrol station proposals: they are sold as practical, dependable neighbourhood infrastructure, when in reality they are tethered to volatile international fuel markets that local communities do not control. The ACCC says international benchmark prices and the Australian dollar are the biggest influences on what Australians pay for fuel. In its December quarter 2025 breakdown, about 42% of the average five-city petrol price came from the international cost of refined petrol, about 38% came from excise and GST, and only about 20% came from other wholesale and retail costs and margins. In plain English: local communities wear the risk, while the price is driven by global shocks and tax settings.
And that would be bad enough if petrol stations were harmless. They are not. Western Australia’s Department of Health says there is good evidence that service stations contribute to benzene and other VOCs in surrounding air, and that living near them is associated with an increased cancer risk, particularly childhood leukaemia. Its planning guidance recommends separation distances of at least 50 metres for stations operating during business hours and 100 metres for 24-hour stations. That is not activist hyperbole. That is a public health position grounded in the precautionary principle.
So the real question in 2026 is not whether petrol still exists. It obviously does. The real question is why anyone thinks we should still be approving new petrol stations near homes, schools and other sensitive land uses just as the transport market is finally giving Australians genuine alternatives. By June 2025, the federal government reported EVs had reached 10.9% of new light vehicle sales, with almost 128,000 EVs sold over the previous 12 months. Australia had 153 EV models on the market, including 26 priced below $50,000 and 55 below $60,000. Public charging is no longer fringe infrastructure either: there were 1,324 fast and ultra-fast public charging sites nationwide by June 2025.
That makes the planning case for new petrol stations look weaker, not stronger. This is the obvious inference from the data: developers are trying to lock in a long-life, hazardous land use at the exact moment the economics of petrol are becoming more unstable and the alternatives are becoming more affordable. A new petrol station approved today is not just a shop with a canopy. It is a decades-long bet on fuel volatility, benzene exposure, underground tank risk and future cleanup liability, in a country where EV choice and charging access are moving rapidly in the opposite direction.
Developers will say we still need fuel, and for now that is true. But “we still need fuel” is not the same as “we should keep planting new petrol stations into residential growth corridors as if nothing has changed”. Those are two very different arguments. One is about managing today’s reality. The other is about locking communities into yesterday’s infrastructure. In 2026, with fuel prices exposed, public health risks well documented, and affordable EV options growing fast, that second argument is getting harder to defend.
If a developer wants to build a petrol station in 2026, they should have to answer a simple question: why should local residents accept the health risk and long-term land-use burden of a fuel model that is already showing signs of economic and technological decline? Safe planning is supposed to protect communities from avoidable harm. Approving more petrol stations in the EV era does the opposite.
SafeSeparations.org advocates for science-based planning laws. Join us in fighting obsolete fossil fuel developments.