Yes, in parts, and the parts are predictable. The town sits where two rivers come together on their way to the sea. Roughly one postcode in eight carries a high rating on at least one flood measure. Most of the town carries nothing at all. This is a place with a flood problem on particular streets, not a flooded town.
On the Environment Agency's river-and-sea mapping, about 12% of the area's postcodes fall inside flood zone 3, the higher-probability band, and about 7% sit in flood zone 2, the medium-probability fringe beyond it. The two are separate bands rather than one wrapped around the other, which is why the outer one is the smaller number. Zone 3 is the one that changes the tone of a conversation with a lender.
Those zones describe rivers and the sea only. Surface water is the other half of the problem and it behaves differently, arriving as rain on ground that cannot take it, on streets no river map flags. The postcode indicator further down folds surface water in alongside rivers and sea, which is why its numbers do not line up with the zone shares.
Applying the Environment Agency's climate allowance, the share of postcodes inside the zones rises to about 18%. That is not a prediction of a flood. It is the same mapping run with more water in it.
For a buyer the consequence shows up at the insurance stage. A property inside a high-probability zone can attract a higher premium, a bigger excess, or a set of questions the seller would prefer arrived after exchange. Get an indicative quote for the exact address before instructing a solicitor, because the underwriter is not looking at a town-wide figure.
On the postcode indicators, which take the worst of rivers, sea and surface water for each postcode, about 12% rate high, about 14% medium and about 36% low. Those bands overlap the flood-zone shares rather than adding to them. The same postcode can sit in both, counted two different ways.
Counted as properties instead of postcodes, the Environment Agency's rivers-and-sea mapping puts 98 properties at high risk, 106 at medium and 1,310 at low, out of 2,311 carrying any risk at all. Only postcodes with some level of risk appear in that count, so it is not a portrait of the whole town. It is a portrait of the part of it that has to think about this.
About 13% of postcodes sit inside a modelled high-risk extent with no defence present in the model, against about 1% where a defence is present. The second figure is not comfort. A defence in the model means something stands in the way on paper, and paper is not a promise about the water.
The sea is nearer than the town's inland reputation suggests. About 7% of postcodes fall within 500 metres of the coast, which is a threshold the mapping defines rather than a statement about any single address, and the closest postcode lies about 30 metres from it. The median distance is roughly 2,400 metres, so most of the town is a walk from the water rather than sitting on it.
Every postcode here falls under a shoreline management plan, and the policy across the 20, 50 and 100 year horizons is hold the line, meaning the stated intention is to keep the shoreline where it currently is. An intention is not a guarantee, and it is not a defence that has already been built. It tells you what is meant to happen, not what is standing there now.
At the nearest tide gauge, at Devonport, the record running from 1962 to 2015 shows sea level rising at roughly 2.3 millimetres a year. That is a measured historic rate across that record, not a forecast.
No historic flooding is recorded in the area at all. That is genuinely good news, and it is worth being exact about what it means: nothing has been recorded, which is not the same as nothing having happened.
Flood risk here is middling, and it is a question about a specific address rather than about Bridport. The town-wide number is the least useful figure on this page.