Not in the way people usually mean when they ask. No part of Mullion sits in a river or sea flood zone. The village sits inland of its coves, at the top of the valleys rather than at the bottom of them. What risk exists is rainwater with nowhere convenient to go. The sea here is a long-term question, not a next-Tuesday one.
Start with the headline measure. Across the 57 postcodes covered, the share sitting in the Environment Agency's river-and-sea flood zone 3 is zero, and the share in flood zone 2 is also zero. Those two zones are separate bands rather than nested ones, with zone 2 the additional medium-probability fringe lying beyond zone 3, so both being empty means the mapped river and tidal risk genuinely does not reach this place. For a Cornish coastal parish, that is a better starting position than most.
Which leaves surface water. With no river running through the built-up part of the village and no tidal reach inland, whatever flood risk the postcode indicators pick up here is rainfall and drainage rather than a watercourse bursting. That is the kind of flooding that arrives off a hillside and a blocked gully during a summer downpour, affects a handful of properties rather than a street, and never makes the national news.
The forward look holds. Applying the Environment Agency's climate allowance, the share of postcodes falling into the flood zones is still zero, so the river-and-sea position is not one that reclassification is expected to change.
For insurance, that matters more than most buyers realise. A property outside the mapped flood zones with no recorded flood history is a straightforward underwriting proposition, and standard buildings cover should be available without the excess loading or specialist referral that a zone 3 address attracts. Surface-water risk is priced individually, though, so anyone buying at the bottom of a slope or beside a culvert should still get an indicative quote before instructing a solicitor rather than assuming.
The broader postcode-level view folds every indicator together, surface water included. Rated on at least one measure, 9% of the area's postcodes come out high, 7% medium and 37% low. Those bands overlap with the zone figures rather than adding to them, and they describe a postcode's worst single indicator, not a verdict on any individual house inside it.
On whether anything stands between the water and the property, the modelled flood extents put zero percent of postcodes in a high-risk extent, defended or undefended. There is no defence in the model here because there is nothing in the model for a defence to hold back. That is an absence of risk rather than an absence of protection, which is a distinction worth keeping straight.
The coast itself is close enough to matter for some addresses. Roughly 7% of postcodes sit within 500 metres of the coastline, the closest lands about 120 metres from it, and the median postcode sits about 1,000 metres back. The 500-metre figure is a threshold the mapping uses, not a judgement about any particular house.
The shoreline management policy across the covered postcodes is no active intervention, over the 20-year, 50-year and 100-year horizons alike. That means the stated plan is to let this stretch of coast do what it wants, cliff erosion and all, rather than to build or maintain defences against it. It is a policy rather than a promise, and on a hard-rock Lizard coastline it is also the honest answer, but anyone buying a clifftop property should read it as exactly what it says.
For sea level, the nearest long-record gauge at Devonport measured a rise of about 2.35 millimetres a year across its record from 1962 to 2015. That is a measured historic rate over half a century, not a projection, and at the village's distance from the water it is a slow structural fact rather than a personal one.
No historic flooding is recorded in the area. That is genuinely reassuring, and it is not the same as proof that nothing has ever happened here, since records only capture events somebody logged.
Flood risk here sits in the middle rather than at the safe end, and the reason is entirely the surface-water flagging on a minority of postcodes. Take the individual address seriously and the wider village barely registers as a flood question at all.