Partly, and the part matters. Most of the village sits clear of the mapped flood zones. A minority of it does not, and that minority is concentrated rather than scattered. Nothing in the record shows the area having flooded before. This is an address question, not a village question, and two houses a few hundred metres apart can sit on opposite sides of the answer.
Start with rivers and the sea. The Environment Agency's mapping puts about 13% of the area's postcodes in flood zone 3, the higher-probability band, and roughly 1% in flood zone 2. Zone 2 being the smaller number is not an error: the two are separate bands rather than nested circles, with zone 2 covering the medium-probability fringe that sits beyond zone 3 rather than containing it. So the picture is a defined core of higher-risk ground with a thin margin around it, which is what a watercourse running through a valley settlement tends to produce.
Those zones cover rivers and the sea and nothing else. Surface water, the sort that arrives off saturated ground and hard surfaces during a downpour, does not appear in them at all. It shows up only in the combined postcode-level indicator further down, which is the measure to use if standing water in the road is the thing that worries you. Anyone reading the zone map alone and concluding they are fine has read half the story.
Looking forward, the climate-adjusted zone share rises to around 14% of postcodes. That is a modest widening rather than a redrawing, and it is a modelled allowance for future conditions rather than a prediction of what any given winter does.
For insurance, a zone 3 address is a conversation with an underwriter rather than a tick box, and quotes vary far more between insurers on flood-exposed property than they do on ordinary stock. Get an indicative quote before instructing a solicitor, not after. The Flood Re scheme exists to keep cover available on higher-risk homes, though it does not cover properties built since 2009, which matters for anything recent.
On the combined postcode indicator, which folds surface water in alongside rivers and sea, roughly 10% of the area's postcodes rate high on at least one measure, about 22% rate medium and around 15% rate low. Those bands overlap with the zone figures rather than adding to them: a postcode in zone 3 will usually be showing up in the high band here too. Same water, two different rulers.
Counted as homes rather than postcodes, the Environment Agency's rivers-and-sea mapping puts 40 properties at high risk, 113 at medium and 15 at low, out of 653 properties in the postcodes that carry any risk at all. Postcodes with no risk do not appear in that total, so this is a picture of the exposed edge of the village rather than of the whole of it. Forty homes is a specific and checkable number, which is more use than any percentage.
On defences, roughly 6% of postcodes sit inside a high-probability flood extent with no defence present in the model, against about 2% where a defence is present. A defence in the model is not a guarantee of dry floors: it means something has been built, not that it will hold in every event, and it does not remove the property from the risk category.
The shoreline management policy for the coast nearest here is hold the line across the twenty, fifty and hundred-year horizons. That is a stated intention to maintain defences, not a promise of funding and not a defence that exists today. At the nearest tide gauge, Devonport, the record from 1962 to 2015 shows sea level rising at about 2.35 millimetres a year, which is a measured historic rate rather than a forecast.
No historic flooding is recorded for the area. That is genuinely reassuring, and it is not the same as proof that nothing has ever happened here, since the record only holds what was reported and mapped.
Kingskerswell's flood risk is middling and highly localised: fine for most of the village, and a serious pre-offer check for the streets on the wrong side of the line.