No, and the mapping is unusually blunt about it. Larkhill sits outside the river and sea flood zones altogether. No flooding has ever been recorded here. About 4% of postcodes still flag a high rating once surface water is counted, which is the only route water has. The threat here comes from above, not from a river.
Taking the river and sea zones first, none of the area falls inside either of them. Zone 3, the higher-probability band in the Environment Agency's mapping, covers 0% of postcodes here. Zone 2, the medium-probability fringe that sits beyond zone 3 rather than containing it, covers 0% as well. Two zeros on the same map is about as clean as that particular chart gets.
That leaves surface water, which behaves differently. It is rain arriving faster than the ground or the drains can take it, pooling where the land dips and running where the tarmac sends it. It needs no river to be present, which is why somewhere with no river exposure at all can still put a small number of properties on the wrong side of a flood report.
The climate-adjusted version of those same river and sea zones, which applies future allowances to the modelling, also comes out at 0%. Nothing currently outside the zones is projected into them on that measure.
For insurance, that combination is about as straightforward as this gets. No zone exposure and no flood history means cover should be a formality rather than a negotiation. Insurers price at postcode level, though, and their view of a specific address does not always match the published map, so put the exact address into the Environment Agency's long-term flood risk service and get an indicative quote before instructing a solicitor, particularly for the postcodes carrying the high rating.
On the postcode indicator, which folds surface water in alongside rivers and sea and rates each postcode on at least one measure, about 4% come out high, about 8% medium and about 23% low. Those bands overlap with the zone figures rather than adding to them, and a low rating on that scale is a long way from a warning.
The modelled flood extents answer the question people rarely think to ask, which is whether anything stands between the water and the house. Here the share of postcodes in a high-risk extent is 0% whether or not a defence is present in the model, and the undefended low-risk share is 0% too. Worth being clear that "defended" in this modelling means a defence exists, not that a house behind one is safe. In this case there is nothing for a defence to hold back, which is the better version of that answer.
The nearest tide gauge is at Portsmouth, where the record running from 1962 to 2023 shows sea level rising at about 2 millimetres a year. That is a measured historic rate at the coast, not a forecast, and for somewhere this far inland it is background rather than a concern.
No historic flooding is recorded anywhere in the area, at 0% of postcodes. That absence is genuinely reassuring without being proof of anything, since a record only ever holds what somebody wrote down.
Flooding will be one of the shortest conversations a buyer has here. Rivers and sea are simply not part of the discussion, and the only caution worth carrying to a viewing is a heavy-rain one, on the handful of postcodes that flag it.