Barely, and that is what happens when you build a village on top of a hill. None of Timsbury sits in the river-and-sea flood zones. Almost nothing rates high on any flood measure. Nothing has been recorded flooding here. The water problems in this part of Somerset belong to the valleys below, and Timsbury spent several hundred years watching them from above.
On rivers and the sea, the Environment Agency's mapping puts none of the village's postcodes in flood zone 3 and none in flood zone 2. Those are exclusive bands rather than nested ones: zone 3 is the higher-probability core, zone 2 the additional medium-probability fringe sitting outside it. Here both come back at zero. The Cam Brook and the Conygre Brook run below the village on either side, and the ground between them and the housing does the work.
Surface water is the measure that actually finds anything, and even then it is modest. Across the 74 postcodes assessed, around 1% flag as high risk on at least one indicator and around 1% as medium, with roughly 22% flagging low. Surface-water flooding is the kind that arrives off a hard rain and a blocked gully rather than a swollen river, and on a plateau with slopes running away from it, that is the version worth thinking about.
Looking forward, the Environment Agency also publishes a climate-adjusted zone that allows for future sea level and rainfall. In Timsbury it covers none of the area, the same as the present-day zones. That is unusual and worth registering: plenty of places that are clear today pick up exposure in the climate scenario, and this one does not.
For insurance, this is about as uncomplicated as flood risk gets in England. A property outside the flood zones with no recorded history should attract standard cover without a flood-specific loading. That said, insurers price the individual address rather than the village, and a house sitting at the bottom of a slope with a surface-water flag on its postcode can still be quoted differently to one two streets up. Get an indicative quote before you instruct a solicitor rather than after.
Pulling the postcode-level picture together, and remembering these bands fold surface water in alongside rivers and sea rather than sitting alongside the zone figures: about 1% of postcodes rate high on at least one measure, about 1% medium, and roughly 22% low. The high band amounts to a single address across the whole village. The overlap matters, so do not add these to the zone shares above and think you have a total.
On defences, the modelled flood extents show none of Timsbury inside a high-risk extent, whether defended or undefended. That is a cleaner answer than most places get. Elsewhere the distinction matters a great deal, because a defended extent only means a defence exists in the model, not that the house behind it is safe. Here the question does not arise, because there is no high-risk extent to be behind.
Sea level is included for completeness rather than relevance. The nearest tide gauge with a long record is at Portsmouth, which has measured a rise of about 2 millimetres a year across its 1962 to 2023 record. That is a measured historic rate, not a projection, and this village sits on a plateau a long way inland. It is context, not a concern.
There is no recorded historic flooding anywhere in the area. That is genuinely reassuring, though it is worth being honest about what it means: it records what has been logged, not a guarantee that no cellar has ever taken water. Absence of a record is good evidence, not proof.
Flooding is one of the easier boxes to tick here. The zones are empty, the climate allowance changes nothing, and the only exposure worth a conversation is a small amount of surface water at the address level.