I'm disappointed by their choice in site design and I'm sure it'll be infuriating to interact with for those with disabilities. It's a real wasted opportunity to use this instead of something more battle tested and fit for purpose such as the design used by the gov.uk site.
I agree that might be a fairer comparison however I would argue is just as a accessible as https://gov.uk/ (to be expected since it's the same site), I don't think the addition of images makes it less so.
It might be a negative experience for you but I believe sacrificing elegance in favour of accessibility is a fair trade to make when building something that will be used by a diverse group of people.
Accessible design is good design. Everything we build should be as inclusive, legible and readable as possible. If we have to sacrifice elegance - so be it. We’re building for needs, not audiences. We’re designing for the whole country, not just the ones who are used to using the web. The people who most need our services are often the people who find them hardest to use. Let’s think about those people from the start.
https://www.gov.uk/
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/government-design-principles/