I think the NHS consensus is that systemic estrogen shouldn't be either prescribed or increased if VA is the only symptom.
I don't agree with that but I think the rationale is that local estrogen can be applied to the genitals whereas it cannot to the brain or other internal organs.
However, refusing to prescribe adequate vaginal estrogen to someone who either doesn't want or cannot access a therapeutic dose of systemic estrogen is not part of any guidance and is probably due to either ignorance or very local funding restrictions.
My personal view is that vaginal estrogen is akin to in work benefits, and that optimising systemic treatment should be the first port of call where possible, ie treat the whole, not just the hole.
That said there will always be some who need or want to use vaginal, and in most cases clinicians are more than happy to oblige in the belief that systemic is dangerous and anything that minimises this is a good thing.
From your point of view you can buy additional vaginal estrogen OTC should you wish. This is cheaper than seeing a specialist.
However if it were me I would see someone privately and get on a therapeutic dose of systemic estrogen.
Additionally there are studies from the 1990s by Dr Philip Sarrell and colleagues investigating the level of estrogen at which VA occurs.
They outlined a threshold of around 50pg/ml ( note US units), below which VA was prevalent, and at increasing levels above this it was less and less common.
I believe this corresponds to around 180mmol/L in UK units.
As thresholds of 250-300 have been established for bone protection, I personally believe the presence of VA should prompt a review of systemic treatment as it is suggestive of undertreatment in this regard.
Of course not everyone would choose to increase the systemic dose for multiple reasons, however there are many women chronically treating VA who are unware of its prognostic significance.