Considering this country doesn't have the death penalty, and probably never will again, I'll steer clear of that side of the discussion.

Where he is housed for the remainder of his life is like the son of his first victim says: "Where he is locked up does not really change anything."

If the psychiatrists and counselors at Broadmoor have come to the conclusion that he is no longer mentally ill then he should be moved to a different facility. Broadmoor is, by definition, a high security hospital for mentally disabled criminals.
If he is no longer mentally disabled then he doesn't belong there any more.

However, the purpose of prisons and secure hospitals for criminals is to rehabilitate them and ensure that they won't commit any more crimes when they re-enter society - punishment should only be a small part of the prison process.

Additionally, I think that there is a lot of illiteracy in the general public when it comes to mental illness. I believe that Peter Sutcliffe, the man who committed 13 murders, is not the same man as the cured 70 year old sitting in a mental hospital waiting to be told where he will spend the rest of his life locked away.
I believe that he should now have a retrial and more psychological tests done to see whether or not he is still a threat to society, and if they determine that he is not a threat then he should be released - and be kept under strict observation, obviously.

I understand the reservations many people would have if a decision like this were to be made, which it probably won't be.
But I trust the psychologists to make the right choice in this situation, depending on whether or not he is still a violent person, despite being cured.

If he is still violent and prone to commit more murders, sure, put him in prison.
If he's not a violent person any more then there is no point in putting him in prison.
He would be serving time for crimes which he committed when he was under the influence of a mental illness which he did not ask for.
That is wrong, in my opinion.