Mostly no, with a small and specific yes. The village sits on chalk, a long way inland. No flooding is recorded anywhere in the area. A short list of postcodes near the water carries a high rating. The risk here is not Pimperne, it is a handful of addresses within it, and the average tells you nothing about which.
On the Environment Agency's river-and-sea mapping, about 3% of the area's postcodes fall in flood zone two and about 2% in flood zone three. Those are exclusive bands rather than nested ones. Zone three is the higher-probability core, and zone two is the medium-probability fringe sitting outside it, which is why the outer band is the larger of the two. Both are small slices of a large rural area, and both cluster where you would expect them to: along the valley floors rather than up on the downs.
Surface water is the flooding that catches people out in chalk country, because it arrives off fields and roads rather than out of a river. No standalone surface-water share is published for this area. It is folded into the combined postcode indicator further down, which is the figure to read for run-off risk rather than the zone shares above.
Looking forward, the Environment Agency's climate-change allowance widens the picture to about 7% of postcodes. That is the modelled extent with future sea level and rainfall built in, not a prediction about any particular house or any particular decade.
For insurance, small and specific is the awkward combination. A village with almost no risk overall still contains addresses that will price differently, and insurers work from the postcode and the address, not the parish. Anyone buying near the valley floor should get an indicative quote before instructing a solicitor rather than after, because a surprise at that stage is expensive and late.
Taking every measure together, including surface water alongside rivers and sea, about 8% of the area's postcodes carry a high rating on at least one indicator, about 6% medium and about 21% low. Those bands overlap with the flood-zone shares above rather than adding to them, because a postcode can appear on both counts. The gap between 2% in the highest river-and-sea zone and 8% on at least one measure is where run-off lives.
Counted as homes rather than postcodes, the Environment Agency's rivers-and-sea mapping puts 26 properties at high risk, 35 at medium and 72 at low, out of 722 properties in the 29 postcodes that carry any risk at all. Thirteen of the high-risk properties are residential. Every other postcode in the area is absent from that list entirely, which is the more useful way to read it: this is a short, findable list, not a diffuse worry.
On whether anything stands between the water and the house, about 2% of the area's 182 postcodes sit inside a high-risk modelled extent with no defence present, and about 2% sit inside one with a defence present in the model. The word defended is doing less work than it appears to. It means a structure exists in the modelling, not that the property behind it is safe, and defences are built to a design standard that weather is under no obligation to respect.
Sea level is background rather than foreground here. The nearest tide gauge is at Portsmouth, where the measured record from 1962 to 2023 shows a rise of about 2 millimetres a year. That is a historic rate at a coastal gauge some distance away, and an inland chalk village does not flood from the sea. It matters to the wider county picture, not to this street.
No historic flooding is recorded across the area at all. That is genuinely reassuring, and it is also a record of what has been reported and logged rather than proof that water has never come up a lane. Absence of an entry is good news, not a guarantee.
Flood risk here is middling in the most ordinary way: fine almost everywhere, meaningfully not fine in a few identifiable places. Put the exact address into the Environment Agency's long-term flood-risk tool before you get attached to the kitchen.