The PIFR is well known to EASA committee members.
I don't know why the principle was rejected. Perhaps because flying just one type of approach is not very useful, especially if alternated need to be considered. Another factor is that there is a resistance (probably correctly) to producing a "second class IR" because that could lead to lobbying (by airline and ATC unions, probably) to block such pilots from certain airports and certain airspace classes - a thin end of a wedge.
So, the end proposal was for the EIR whose termination is clearly VFR-only, and the FCL008 IR which is fully ICAO compliant.
Like America, Australia can do a lot of good sub-ICAO stuff because almost none of their private pilots ever leaves their airspace. Like automatic acceptance of FAA STCs; EASA would do that over its dead body.