You're right that 22% of children meeting expected standard is not great - however you need to put this in context with their demographic. If the school's intake is from affluent middle class educated families, then this is appalling. If the school has a more deprived intake, high proportion of children with SEN and possibly a very mobile population etc, then it might not be so bad.
The other thing you can't see off the high level stats is how individuals do. There might, for example, be children getting 120 in Reading SATS, exceeds expectation in Writing and then having a bad day with the maths and getting 99. They'll therefore fall into the "not meeting required standard" bucket but this is clearly very different to a child getting 80 in all their SATs and below expectations in writing.
If you're interested in this school, I would suggest speaking to the headteacher/other member of SMT to ask why they feel they are not getting great results, and what they are doing to address this. Their answer will be more useful (if this is a school on the up, or a school that's stagnating/getting worse) than looking at headline results.
You should also know that many parents do just look at headline results so it's likely that some parents will be avoiding this school, thereby skewing the intake demographic.
The secondary school obviously matters, but you want your child to have a strong enough grounding at primary level that they do not enter secondary school at too low a standard. A child entering secondary who has not met expectations at primary school is (statistically) unlikely to do well at GCSE and onwards. However, you should also take "outstanding" with a pinch of salt! Many outstanding schools have not been inspected for years, and even if yours has, it may have changed significantly by the time your child gets there.