If this equivalent of a JAA Class 2 medical requirement remains for LAPL holders then I agree with you Beagle - there is simply no point in having the licence in the first place.
The NPPL, on which the LAPL appears to be based, was created precisely to afford the opportunity for pilots who could not gain a Class 2 medical to continue flying. And history has proven that there has been no compromise to flight safety as a result of pilots flying under GP authorised medicals.
And it's not just NPPL holders who will be affected, but also the entire gliding community.
As renowned MD Peter Saundby wrote in the September edition of Today's Pilot, there is strong evidence that EASA's backing of the opinion of a few well placed AME's with vested interests (and which ignores some 30,000 objections raised by the flying community), is actually contrary to both EU treaty and the EU Commission's Basic Regulation 216/2008 which details EASA's responsibilities and demands appropriate and proportionate regulation.
EASA are treading on very thin ice here. There are some very influential and well placed individuals out there who would not be flying if it wasn't for the reduced medical requirements afforded under NPPL and UK glider pilot licences.
Regards, jez