Not from rivers or the sea, no. None of the village's postcodes sit in a flood zone. None carry a recorded flood history. The coast is the better part of ten kilometres away, so tidal water is somebody else's problem. What can still catch you here is rain with nowhere to go, and that is measured on a completely different map.
The Environment Agency's river-and-sea mapping puts 0% of the area's postcodes in flood zone 3 and 0% in flood zone 2. Those two zones are separate bands rather than one sitting inside the other: zone 2 is the additional medium-probability fringe lying beyond zone 3, so a smaller zone 2 figure is normal rather than odd. Here both come back empty. On the fluvial and tidal measure, which is the first one a conveyancer and a lender will look at, Roche simply does not appear.
Surface water runs on a separate indicator, and inland it is the one that earns attention. With rivers and the sea out of the picture, the remaining mechanism is rainfall arriving faster than the drains and the ground can take it, and that ignores flood zone boundaries entirely because it never came from a river. Anyone treating the two measures as the same number ends up either falsely reassured or alarmed about the wrong thing.
The climate-adjusted version of the zone mapping, which widens the modelled extents to allow for future rainfall and sea level, also returns 0% of postcodes here. The forward look does not move the river-and-sea answer.
For insurance, that is about as clean a starting position as an inland Cornish village can hold. A home outside the flood zones with no recorded flood history at its postcode is a straightforward risk to underwrite and should not attract a flood loading on that basis alone. It is a starting position rather than a quote, though: insurers price an address, not a village, and a surface-water rating or a past claim on the property itself will still surface when they run it.
The broader postcode indicators, which fold surface water in alongside rivers and sea and flag a postcode if any single measure rates it, put about 13% of Roche's postcodes at high, about 26% at medium and about 36% at low. Those bands overlap with the zone figures rather than adding to them, so a postcode can be flagged high on this measure while sitting in no river or sea flood zone whatsoever. That combination is precisely what this village looks like on paper.
On the modelled flood extents, the share of postcodes inside a high-risk extent with a defence present in the model is 0%, and the share inside a high-risk extent with no defence is also 0%. That is not a story about excellent flood defences. There is nothing modelled here to defend against, which is a better answer than a defence being present, because a defence appearing in a model has never meant a house behind it is safe.
About 38% of the area's postcodes fall within a shoreline management plan area, and the policy recorded across the twenty, fifty and hundred year horizons is hold the line or managed realignment. A shoreline policy is a stated intention about how a stretch of coast will be managed over that period. It is not a wall that exists, and it is not a commitment that the money will be there when the horizon arrives.
The nearest tide gauge is at Devonport, where the record running from 1962 to 2015 measured a rise of about 2.35 millimetres a year. That is a historic rate taken from that record rather than a forecast, and with the nearest coast about 9.6 kilometres off, it belongs in the regional background rather than in the decision on a house here.
No postcode in the area carries a recorded history of flooding. That is genuinely reassuring, and it is worth being precise about what it is: an absence from the record. Small events that were never reported, never claimed on and never mapped leave no trace in it, so read it as strong evidence rather than as proof.
Flood risk here lands in the middle of the range rather than at either end, with nothing at all from rivers or the sea and something real on surface water for a slice of postcodes. At the viewing, ask about the drains and where the water goes in a downpour, not about the river.