How do you find anything on those two pages without first mentally parsing the layouts? On the first link, the search bar is in the middle of the damned page, even though the site seems designed around search (meaningful static nav is confined to one element, the Information mouseover at the top)!
By comparison, the manchester site is dead simple, and search is at the top corner where it should be. That style of design reduces content areas (with a corresponding boost to element/object/image size, since there's less stuff competing for the space). Call it eye candy, but it's a lot easier to use for people who aren't used to visually parsing complex page designs.
My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, and some of the icon choices, not the basic design style.
"... search is at the top corner where it should be."
Did you ever visit the Google homepage? Why should search be at the top corner?
I don't know if you understand Dutch but since text is part of the interface maybe this is why you are having issues with the design?
"My problem with the manchester site is the poor use of vertical space, not the basic design style."
Well I was talking about exactly this. The Manchester site may look nice but it is lacking overview. Design is more than looks. It is also about text, interaction and so on.
The search box goes in a top corner normally because putting it elsewhere disrupts the content layout or takes unnecessarily long to find. If there's no other content, the search box can go anywhere.
I use google chrome which translates the page well enough for me to understand.
There are too many visually distinct sections on those Dutch websites for someone who isn't familiar with the site to find anything quickly. There are non-tech-savvy folks for whom anything more complex than the manchester site, or Google's front page search box, is too complex for them to deal with. They wouldn't be able to visually scan the Dutch pages for what they want. Whether it's lack of technical familiarity, lack of attention span, or something else, I don't know. Lots of text divided up into arbitrary sections simply doesn't work well for them.
How is the manchester site lacking an overview? It has four major categories near the top, another tier of categories which expands into 20 categories with one click, and if that doesn't find what you're looking for, or you're lazy, you can type what you want into the conveniently located search box.
I agree that the manchester site be improved (most of the stuff at the bottom should be eliminated or turned into links in the top bar), but I think it's closer to ideal than the two sites you linked are.
The benefits of keeping as much info above the fold has been debunked time and time again. These two sites you linked are unnecessarily cluttered and take time for the user to absorb. They look like they were designed in 2002.
Good design involves a lot more than eye candy.