No, not in any way worth losing sleep over. The village sits on top of a hill, which is the oldest and most reliable flood defence ever invented. Nothing here falls inside the river-and-sea flood zones. A handful of postcodes flag on the broader indicators, and that is rainwater looking for a way down the slope rather than a river looking for a way up. Of all the things to interrogate before buying here, this is not the one.
On the Environment Agency's river-and-sea mapping, none of the village sits in flood zone 3 and none sits in flood zone 2. Those two are separate bands rather than one inside the other, with zone 2 covering the additional medium-probability fringe beyond zone 3, and Peasedown St John registers in neither. That is what being 5 miles up a hill from Bath buys you, and it is the single cleanest fact on this page.
What risk exists is surface water, which behaves differently. Rain lands on a hilltop, gathers speed on the way down and finds the low points in the built-up parts of the village. On the postcode indicator that folds surface water in alongside rivers and sea, about 4% of the village's postcodes carry a high rating. That is a drainage question and a where-exactly-on-the-slope question, not a floodplain one.
The climate-adjusted zone, which extends the modelling to allow for future conditions, also covers none of the village. The hill does not stop being a hill.
For insurance, that combination should mean ordinary cover at ordinary terms for most addresses here. Insurers price the individual property rather than the village, so a home at the bottom of a run-off route can still attract questions that its neighbour up the road never sees. Getting an indicative quote before instructing a solicitor costs nothing and settles the point faster than any map will.
Taking every measure together, and counting a postcode if it flags on at least one of them, about 4% rate high, 7% medium and 26% low. Those bands overlap with the zone figures rather than adding to them, and they include surface water, which is why anything appears at all. Roughly a quarter of the village carrying a low rating on some indicator is unremarkable for anywhere with a gradient and drains.
Counted as homes rather than postcodes, the Environment Agency's rivers-and-sea mapping lists a single postcode in the whole village as carrying any risk, covering 34 properties. One of those is rated high, none is rated medium or low, and the high-rated one is not residential. Only postcodes carrying some risk appear on that list at all, so the rest of the village is absent because there is nothing to record.
The defended-or-undefended question, which usually matters more than anything else on a flood page, does not arise here. No postcode sits inside a modelled high-risk extent, defended or otherwise. Worth knowing for elsewhere: defended means a defence exists in the model, not that the house behind it is safe.
Sea level gets measured at the nearest tide gauge, at Portsmouth, which has recorded a rise of about 2 millimetres a year across its 1962 to 2023 record. That is a measured historic rate rather than a forecast, and for a hilltop village well inland it is context rather than a threat.
There is also no recorded historic flooding anywhere in the area. Absence of records is genuinely reassuring and it is not the same as proof that water has never come through a door, particularly for surface water, which floods gardens and garages more often than it makes it into official datasets.
Flooding is among the least of this village's concerns, and the map barely has to work to say so. The honest caveat is the slope, not the river: check the specific address against the Environment Agency's long-term risk tool and you will almost certainly get the boring answer you were hoping for.