Yes, and the risk here has an address rather than a postcode. Roughly a twentieth of the area's postcodes sit in the highest river and sea flood band. A fifth carry a high rating on at least one flood measure. The nearest postcode to the water sits under sixty metres from the coast. Gravity has opinions in a town like this, and water that leaves Exmoor has to get past somebody's front door on the way to the sea.
The Environment Agency's mapping puts about 6% of the area's postcodes inside flood zone three, the highest probability band for rivers and the sea. Flood zone two, which is the additional medium probability fringe lying beyond zone three rather than containing it, covers none of them. Both are shares of postcodes, and both describe watercourses and tide only.
Surface water is the mechanism those zone maps do not trace. Rain that lands on a moor and arrives at your gate an hour later is not a river until it is, and in terrain built entirely out of slope that route matters as much as the marked channels. The screening that folds surface water in alongside rivers and sea is the postcode level indicator further down this answer, and it produces a noticeably harder set of numbers than the zone maps alone.
Add the climate allowance and the zone three share rises to about 7% of postcodes. That is the Environment Agency modelling a wetter future onto the same ground, not a prediction of any particular decade.
For insurance, a flood zone entry is the kind of thing that shows up in a solicitor's search after an offer has been accepted, which is the worst possible moment to discover it. Cover is a question of the individual address rather than the town, so an indicative quote before instructing anyone is a twenty minute job that occasionally saves a purchase.
At postcode level, across the area's 155 postcodes, about 21% carry a high rating on at least one flood measure, roughly 15% a medium rating and around 20% a low one. These bands include surface water alongside rivers and sea, so they overlap with the zone figures rather than adding to them. Reading the two sets as cumulative is the single most common way people frighten themselves with flood data.
Counted as homes rather than shares, the Environment Agency's rivers and sea mapping lists 557 properties across 23 postcodes that carry some level of risk. Of those, 90 sit at high risk, 16 at medium, 35 at low and 19 at very low. Twenty-seven of the high risk properties are residential. Only postcodes carrying some risk appear in that listing at all, so it describes the exposed part of the town rather than the whole of it.
On whether anything stands between the water and the building, the modelled extents put about 5% of postcodes inside a high risk area with no defence present in the model, and about 5% inside a high risk area where a defence is present. Defended is a modelling term. It means a structure exists in the dataset, not that the house behind it stays dry, and it should never be read as clearance.
The sea is close for a third of the town. About 34% of postcodes sit within 500 metres of the coast, a threshold the dataset defines rather than a judgement about any one property. The closest postcode is about 56 metres from the water and the median across the area is roughly 810 metres.
Every postcode here falls under a shoreline management plan, and the stated policy over the twenty, fifty and hundred year horizons is to hold the line. That is a declared intention to maintain defences on that frontage. It is not a guarantee of funding, and it is not evidence that a defence currently exists at any given point.
At the nearest tide gauge with a long record, Devonport, sea level rose at about 2.4 millimetres a year across the measurements from 1962 to 2015. That is a recorded historic rate over that period rather than a forecast of the next one.
The historic flood map records no mapped flood extent across the area's postcodes. That is genuinely worth having, with one caution attached: a historic map records what has been surveyed and entered, not everything that has ever happened to a valley. It is the thinnest evidence in this answer, and nobody should let it carry a decision.
Flood risk is the weakest part of the case for living here, and it is weak in a specific rather than a general way. Two houses on the same lane can sit on opposite sides of the answer, which means the town-level figure is only ever the start of the conversation and the postcode search is the rest of it.