And there, for the UK LAPL holder lies the dilemma.
For many if not most UK PPLs the flying is confined to the UK airspace in VFR and in aeroplanes below 2 metric tonnes. The introduction of the JAA and the rigid JARs was unpopular. So, the NPPL was created as a remedy. Not being able to add an IMCr is a small price to pay against the benefit of the reduced licence currency and the simple medical requirements of the sub-ICAO NPPL.
The hammer blow following the takeover of EASA was that NPPL holders, and without any reasonable logic whatsoever, would not be permitted to continue to fly aircraft designated "EASA aeroplanes"; the same aeroplanes many will have been flying for years. However, as if they didn't know, the LAPL had been created no doubt in anticipation. This licence, without any additional training requirement over the NPPL, would magically permit the flying of EASA aeroplanes. However, with the sweetener that the LAPL is valid throughout europe.
So large numbers were persuaded to opt for the LAPL, but now after only a few short years there is the strong possibility that the UK LAPL may be confined to UK airspace only. If this happens the advantages over the NPPL will be zero, but with the more stringent and expensive medical requirement.
Should the EU continue to validate the LAPL for flight within the EU airspace they may not permit the licence to be used without formality to fly EU member states registered aeroplanes as now. At this late stage we should not be guessing.