Do nothing - assumes zero investment and continue to use Cheltenham accommodation as long as viable- this was seen by GCHQ as a totally impractical option.
Do minimum - this option involves maintaining the Cheltenham sites, limited refurbishment of some buildings on the sites but no new buildings. The investment would be limited to essential works. Although this option was not seen as practical option it was used as a base position to compare other options as became known as the Service Cost Benchmark.
Refurbish Oakley and Benhall - This would be the refurbishment of existing buildings on both sites rather than building new. Does not allow savings of long term running costs to be achieved through collocation of support services. Considered impracticable by GCHQ as it would deliver few long term benefits.
Limited moves between Oakley and Benhall - aimed to concentrate main operations at Oakley and support services at Benhall by means of different combinations of refurbishment and new build. Considered by GCHQ a hybrid option being a mixture of compromise and short-term savings and would only deliver a few of the long term benefits. Therefore considered not practical.
Develop both Oakley and Benhall - this involved the continuation of the Cheltenham Building Programme with new accommodation on a staged basis on both sites. Some disposal of surplus property on the Benhall site would occur. Although some medium term flexibility would be achieved fails to deliver long term running cost savings and inhibited long term flexibility. This option became the basis of the two site Public Sector Comparator for the PFI deal.
Consolidate at Benhall - this involved the development of the site with new accommodation to house all Cheltenham staff and functions. Disposal of the Oakley site would produce revenue. Although there would be the costs of decanting to single site operation it was seen as an option that would deliver long term benefits and cost savings.
Consolidate at Oakley - this involved the development of the site with new accommodation to house all Cheltenham staff and functions. Disposal of the Benhall site would produce revenue. Although there would be the costs of decanting to single site operation it was seen as an option that would deliver long term benefits and cost savings. Oakley consolidation was seen as more problematic than Benhall as site development whilst continuing operations would be more difficult.
Relocate to local green-field site - this allows the development of an optimum design solution and a shorter construction period than the alternative options It would give the long-term benefits of single site operation. Oakley and Benhall sites would be sold as surplus to requirements. Disadvantages are the need to find and purchase a suitable site, the need to transition and maintain operations in the process and the potential problems associated with local planning.
Relocate to Swindon - This would be similar to the greenfield option but using the mainly agricultural site at Blakehill held by GCHQ. The advantages of single site operation would be available but considered that it would be more difficult to obtain the necessary planning permissions and had implications for retaining and employing GCHQ's specialist staff.
Relocate to Chicksands - This option was considered as possibility of combining with the Ministry of Defence plans to move intelligence staff to this location. It allows closer liaison with the intelligence and security community. Concerns were expressed by GCHQ on the considerable disruption of the business operation and the complex planning required. Not considered a practical option.
Relocate to London - This option was considered as it moved the business nearer its customer base in London. The main disadvantage would be the higher disruption to the business than the Cheltenham area moves also a major impact on staff morale of having to move to and commute in the London area. Therefore the option was seen to have greater disadvantages and thus not practical.
Relocate elsewhere - this assumed the closure of the Cheltenham sites and relocation to an unspecified suitable site in the UK. Again as for the London the disadvantages of staff and business disruption outweighed the advantages and it was not seen as a practical option.