I can see both sides of the argument. Being a homeowner myself. I think I would be concerned if something similar happened to me. At the very least would like to understand how the ISP came to the decision to take the approach that they did. Wanting better Internet, am chasing up OR to find out why FTTP went straight past my property. In my case all infrastructure is under the pavement. Similar to those residents we have fairly decent FTTC speeds. No G.Fast so up to 80Mbps.
I would hazard a guess that when those local residents think it should go underground that would be done in a neat an tidy way. Like in my street where I guess the ducting was put in when the estate was built and the only sign of any telecoms are the access covers every few meters. What would probably happen (having seen VM, Gigaclear and others work). They will go right down the middle of the pavement digging a trench, hopefully avoiding all the other utilites. Those residents would go fine, but they're going to resurface all the pavements though? No. They just patch up the trench they dug, so they'll be a nice fresh tarmac line running down the middle of pavements and across roads - am sure they won't complain about that? Would certainly detract from the look of the neighbourhood. I would say it did when Gigaclear installed in my Dad's village - that being said you get used to it.
Bear in mind this is local newspaper reporting? So do we have to take with a pinch of salt? Trying to make the story more news worthy than it actually is?
Sounds like both sides of the argument could do with talking more.
At the end of the day the Highways / Council adopted the roads after they were built and became responsible for them. If road was not adopted the local residents would be jointly responsible for the maintenance - but one presumes they could stop the Internet company on their land?