Yes, but I would call it cinerascens. Until someone shows some convincing (molecular) evidence that there are indeed two different species, I use the oldest name. I have found no definite and consistent morphological differences.
Thank you Paul. I see from the UK Checklist maintained by Peter Chandler that cinerascens is treated as a synonym thus,
"subcinerascens Collin, 1926 +
cinerascens: authors, misident. "