I must be misunderstanding your comment. Are you advocating for the government to take a land owner’s property without any recourse? The land owner is given no choice in the matter? Seems awful.
Even if the subject weren't publicly owned land, the implication would be the opposite, that landowners should control their own land and not everything around it that doesn't belong to them.
Yes, you misunderstood the comment to which you were replying. Public roadways serve more than just the properties adjacent to them.
People should not be downvoting your comment.
Roads are generally not controlled or owned by the adjacent landowners but rather the government. Although do let me know if it's different in London.
Sure, it’s called eminent domain, the land owner has no recourse but they do get compensated, and it’s an almost universal concept.