Not in the way the word usually means. None of the village sits inside the river-and-sea flood zones. Nothing has flooded here on record. The water is close, though, and in one place very close. In a creekside parish the thing that puts water through a door is rarely the estuary; it is whatever falls on the hill behind you.
Start with the formal answer. The Environment Agency's mapping places 0% of the area's postcodes in flood zone 3, the higher-probability river-and-sea band, and 0% in zone 2, the additional medium-probability fringe that sits beyond zone 3 rather than around it. Both zeroes are real zeroes. For a village this close to tidal water, that is a better result than the geography would lead you to expect.
Surface water is the gap in that reassurance. The zone mapping does not measure rain running off a slope, which in Cornwall is the mechanism that does most of the damage to most of the houses. The only indicator here that folds surface water in is the postcode-level rating, and it is a good deal less tidy than the zone figures.
The forward look does not change the formal position either. With the Environment Agency's climate allowance applied, the share of postcodes falling into the river-and-sea flood zones is still 0%. The climate adjustment moves a lot of English coastal villages into a worse band. It does not move this one.
For insurance, that combination is about as good as a tidal address gets. No zone, no recorded history, and no climate-adjusted zone means standard cover and standard questions for most of the village. It does not mean every address here is identical. A property on a creek edge with a high postcode rating can still attract an underwriter's attention, and the flood search in conveyancing is the point at which you find out which kind of address you are buying.
The postcode picture is where the caveats live. On at least one flood measure, which includes surface water alongside rivers and sea, about 12% of the area's postcodes carry a high rating, 6% medium and 24% low. Those bands overlap each other and they are not the same measure as the flood zones, so they cannot be stacked on top of them. They are a different lens on the same village, and a less flattering one.
Counted as homes rather than shares, the numbers shrink fast. Only three postcodes here carry any river-and-sea risk at all, and within them 80 properties fall inside the mapped area. Three of those are rated high risk and one low, with none in the medium band. None of the three high-risk properties are residential. That is a small, specific problem sitting on a small, specific bit of ground.
On defences, the question does not really arise. No postcode in the area sits inside a modelled high flood extent, defended or undefended, so there is nothing standing between water and house because the model does not put the water there in the first place.
The coast is the part that makes people pause. About 77% of the area's postcodes sit within 500 metres of the shoreline, which is a threshold the data defines rather than a claim about any particular house. The closest comes in at roughly 50 metres, and the median sits at about 350 metres. This is a village built to look at water.
Every postcode here falls under a shoreline management plan, and the policy for this stretch across the 20, 50 and 100 year horizons is no active intervention. That means the stated intention is not to build or maintain defences along it. A policy is an intention rather than a guarantee, and no active intervention is the intention of leaving the coastline to do what coastlines do.
For context on the longer horizon, the nearest tide gauge at Devonport recorded sea level rising at about 2.35 millimetres a year across its 1962 to 2015 record. That is a measured historic rate over half a century, not a projection of what happens next.
As for history, the brief records no past flooding in the area at all. That genuinely counts for something, since a place that has flooded before tends to flood again. It is not proof nothing has ever happened, only that nothing has been recorded.
Flood risk here lands somewhere in the middle: clean on the formal zones, unremarkable on the recorded history, and complicated by a shoreline the plan has no intention of defending.